Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

2016-05-02 Thread Victor Grousset/tuxayo
On 02/05/2016 08:52, Jacob Chapman wrote: > Yes. I think this is a great idea. By making it opt-in we can encourage > people to be a sustaining member without rejecting the people who are > used to one-time-only donations. Indeed, that would allow projects to not need to keep a second donation

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

2016-05-02 Thread Stephen Michel
On May 2, 2016 12:11:46 AM EDT, Aaron Wolf wrote: >Incidentally, besides hearing thoughts from others, I'm not clear in >our >new project management where is the best place to write down this idea >so that it gets discussed and can then be something our research and >design

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

2016-05-02 Thread Aaron Wolf
On 05/02/2016 01:27 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: > This makes sense to me. Offering a few options rather than just one can > change people's decision frame from "shall I do this?" (yes vs. no) to > "how shall I do this?" (option 1 vs. option 2. vs none of the above). > Offering a one-time option

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

2016-05-02 Thread Jacob Chapman
Yes. I think this is a great idea. By making it opt-in we can encourage people to be a sustaining member without rejecting the people who are used to one-time-only donations. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > So, I learned from in research in traditional

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] An opt-in we don't prefer could help Snowdrift design , ,

2016-05-02 Thread Aaron Wolf
On 05/02/2016 02:34 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Michael Siepmann > wrote: >> On 05/01/2016 10:11 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> So, I learned from in research in traditional fundraising this >>> interesting bit: >>> >>> This pertains to