Michael Olson wrote: > Adam Chlipala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Omry Yadan wrote: >> >>> 1. I hope there will be a few warning emails (T-4 months, T-3.5 >>> months, T-0.25 months?) sent automatically when the user balance >>> approach 3 months worth of payments. >>> >>> >> The script warns now 2 months ahead of time. I really have no >> sympathy for people who need more time than that to plan to pay a few >> dollars, so I won't change it unless someone lays out a rational >> argument in favor of an alternative. >> > > Well, I *can* have some sympathy for them, because at my pledge level, I > would have been nailed for not having at least $70 in my account. As > I'm starting a new job, moving, and dealing with money being tight, > getting the account freeze-dried would have been a supreme PITA. > I don't think the deposit should be based on 3 months at pledge level. I think it should be based on three months at the minimum contribution level and be the same for everyone.
I've been studying the issue off and on since pledges were first proposed--of course, it is no secret that I was not a fan of them and only tolerate them at this point because some members are already accustomed to them and want to use them and want them--and due to their voluntary nature I think that any amount paid by members above the 1 pledge unit level must be considered a donation to the co-op, not business done with it. Thus it makes little sense to require a higher deposit from members in anticipation of prospective future donations based on past donations. I think that our system should, for any member whose (new sense) balance reaches zero, should automatically reduce their pledge level to 1 immediately, and that pending implementation of this, we should unwind and bill out any donations above the 1 unit pledge level out to the membership from members who have negative balances. There probably aren't many in that situation anyway. And that the balance should be the same for everyone, based on 1 unit pledge level. Adam, consider this a vote against the deposit system as currently implemented; subject only to the two objections above, I would vote for it. Of course if some members were using a higher level of service and required to pay more, their deposit should be based on the higher required rate. By the way mwolson, I have a simple suggestion for you, and that is to immediately reduce your pledge level to 1. I've been scaling back my own pledge level over the past few months from 5 to 2, and I will set an example by setting mine to 1 now as well. There is no obligation of any sort, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have other financial pressures there is no legitimate reason to pledge higher than 1. I dislike the "pledge" system now to the extent that it conveys any notion of obligation or virtue in it. Of course donations of cash as well as equipment and time have helped to make HCoop viable (and more affordable for other members), and cash is easier to donate than equipment and time for those who have neither. But cash is also easier to bill, and if we need cash we should be billing members, not soliciting donations. HCoop is great but it's not a charity. -ntk _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
