On August 31, 2016 6:38:46 AM EDT, Bryan Richter <br...@snowdrift.coop> wrote: >On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote: >> >> On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote: >> > >> >On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >>>> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we >> >>>>>> only charge if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the >> >>>>>> total". >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a >> >>>>> bit weak. But I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a >> >>>>> percentage that makes you strongly prefer it? I still think a >> >>>>> level of indirection is a good thing. It almost always is in >> >>>>> software. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes >> >>>> no fee, and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. >> >>>> But say there was a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I >> >>>> guess we'd accept that at any level if we felt it was okay to >> >>>> use (even though that would be higher fee for medium and higher >> >>>> charges vs Stripe). But since this is all post-MVP, we can >> >>>> ignore this point. >> >>>> >> >>>> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees >> >>>> as percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee >> >>>> (even though that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real >> >>>> justification besides "we can" for taking a full 5% of a >> >>>> $10,000,000 project given that their costs are about the same >> >>>> as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the merits of fixed >> >>>> amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the common thing >> >>>> people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own >> >>>> charts at >> >>>> https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding >> >>>> >> >>>> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area >> >>>> of this though. >> >>>> >> >>> I support Michaels view of preferring percentage. We need to >> >>> have a simple, clear agenda across all current or future payment >> >>> processors. A plain dollar might be clearer for one service, but >> >>> as soon as there are more it gets confusing. >> >>> >> >>> We should be able to promise: "Fees are never over 10%. Ever." >> >>> That will always make sense and does not seem arbitrary. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Where are we tracking design decisions like this so that we know >> >> what the plan is once we get to implementing or even just mocking >> >> things up? >> >> >> > >> >I don't know we are doing this at all. But you're right, we >> >probably should do. >> >> Imo we should do this in the wiki. Using any other location adds the >> additional work of making sure that the wiki is up to date with the >> other location. > >Actually, I've been using Issues to capture decisions. See e.g. >"Communicate that fees will never be more than 10% of a total charge": > >https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/issue/461 > >I believe that capturing requirements out of discussions should be an >accountability of the project and/or product managers. I've been doing >it, however imperfectly.
I think we're on the same page here. I was talking about capturing requirements, not the discussions themselves (which I agree should be in issues). -- Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity. Email policy: http://smichel.me/email _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
