On 28.06.2017 23:51, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 06/28/2017 02:04 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> While poking around the admin panel for git.snowdrift.coop's githost
>> account, I found that I can enable GitHub OAuth.
>>
>> I've already turned it on as an experiment. Should we leave it on?
>>
>> Pros:
>
On 10.02.2017 21:48, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:40:52PM +0100, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>>
>> On 09.02.2017 19:04, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:40:24PM +0100, Robert Martinez (mray)
>>> wrote:
>>>> T
On 09.02.2017 19:04, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:40:24PM +0100, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>> The FSFE ML just put my attention to a funding project of the german
>> government:
>>
>> https://prototypefund.de/en/
>>
>> It loo
The FSFE ML just put my attention to a funding project of the german
government:
https://prototypefund.de/en/
It looks like they pay 30.000€ over a 6-month period, given that you
meet some requirements. Imho Snowdrift.coop has a chance.
Thoughts?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 31.01.2017 22:50, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Being one of the 30 patrons so far, I think it's stalling a bit too much at
> the moment.
>
> So I have made a A4 flyer suitable to hang on the many pin boards along the
> hall way
> track at FOSDEM this weekend.
>
> The audience a
On 10.12.2016 07:00, Bryan Richter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have taken a full-time job in Portland, so effective immediately I am
> "just another" Snowdrift volunteer. Yay! Now I can continue to help out
> the project without being a big, immediate expense for the organization
> while its cash flo
On 20.09.2016 21:27, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> WHOOPS, I was too TIRED. I mistyped! I obviously meant:
>
> "CrowdMATCHING for public goods" not "crowdfunding"
>
> Sorry for the confusion there. The first few paragraphs should be
> changed to "crowdmatching" where I carelessly wrote "crowdfunding"
>
On 20.09.2016 10:04, mray wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>> What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
>
> What about dropping "for"?
>
> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> "Crowdm
On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
> What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods"
What about dropping "for"?
"Crowdmatching for public goods"
"Crowdmatching public goods"
You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
goods. Omitting "for" also makes
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
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
On 03.08.2016 16:50, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 04:56 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 03.08.2016 12:48, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By definition the carry over is lower than the limit where fees ma
On 03.08.2016 12:48, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>> By definition the carry over is lower than the limit where fees make
>> sense - I expect this to be low.
>> For this low amount of money to trigger an unfortunate un-matching the
On 03.08.2016 04:13, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/02/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>>> I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will be
>>> added to your outstanding balance each month." That is, carried ov
During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works.
I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:
I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch it
*never ever*. A decision by the user to set a monthly limit trumps
"hidden costs" always, no
On 04.06.2016 08:35, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Bryan Richter skreiv 04. juni 2016 03:47:
>> There are two situations where I'm not sure what the best action is.
>
> IMO, the best solution (in both cases) is to *not* reveal that the use
> has (or hasn’t) an account. If I’m trying to be anonymo
you my cell (+1 413 636 1352) and
> tell you to send me a Signal message :)
>
> If you still want to send me encrypted mail, my key is listed on
> keyservers by step...@snowdrift.coop and s...@smichel.me. Fingerprint is
> 642D CB46 D472 8806 1B9B
> 7F35 6FC6 59B5 2A14 5DE3
>
On 02.05.2016 22:27, 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 ca
On 12.03.2016 17:34, mray wrote:
>
>
> On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> ...please email me your general availability.
>
>
> Hello Stephen,
>
> I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
...just in case it may
On 10.03.2016 01:20, Stephen Michel wrote:
> ...please email me your general availability.
Hello Stephen,
I'm generally available about 19:30 - 01:00 UTC+2, where Thuesday and
about every second Thursday are probably bad for me. I hope this is helpful.
Thank you for caring about all the organ
On 02.02.2016 18:29, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:00:10AM -0600, Jason Harrer wrote:
>>
>> 2) As I'm reviewing and investigating more about what OpenProject
>> can do and how we can organize things, I think it would be
>> beneficial to take the time to try and establish the g
Looks awesome: nice & simple.
On 23.01.2016 17:59, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> This is very much a first draft to illustrate an idea, but I'm sending
> it now in case it could be helpful at SCALE.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing li
On 17.11.2015 02:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 11/16/2015 05:30 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:43:46PM -0500, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>> Does this also mean that should we decide to use the
>>> "donation-to-us" mechanism, those donations would be 501(c)(3)
>>> deduc
On 20.10.2015 19:09, Stephen Michel wrote:
> !IMPORTANT!
> First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, OCT 26
> for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in.
>
> ---
>
> Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal:
>
> I hold these to be self-evident. If
On 19.10.2015 21:29, Jason Harrer wrote:
> Once we get some real data to analyze
> and determine what's working and what's not, there's always room for
> modification and improvement.
I have a concern about this view.
Our system is prone to self-influence.
Depending on starting parameters and i
On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jo
On 19.10.2015 17:47, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>> In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
>>> we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation
On 19.10.2015 23:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2015 01:47 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
check
On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>>> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To
>>> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or
On 30.09.2015 20:30, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:08:18PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Per discussion recently, we worked through a lot of options for slogans.
>> It seem people with various critical views all accept the value of the
>> simple: Free the Commons!
>
> Is the excl
On 24.09.2015 01:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I want to stay a continuous
> patron without any missed months.
Why is that something we care about?
Why don't we want to stick as pledege == count?
If you calculate too narrow, if a project UNFORTUNATELY gets too
successful, if you just don't pay enough
On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Either you are all
> good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over
> inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again, or you
> can zero-out. Fine. Sounds good to me!
I like the simplicity about this approach as well.
Bu
On 21.09.2015 19:48, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 09/21/2015 08:09 AM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20.09.2015 21:29, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote:
>>>> On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
On 21.09.2015 22:09, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> We *are* planning later to offer to projects that are proprietary that
> they can work with us to get FLO and will be allowed as soon as they are
> FLO. We are *absolutely* about freeing things that aren't free, but
> abstractly: as in "free the technology
On 21.09.2015 05:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> My vote now: ***Help Free the Commons***
Staring with "help" sounds desperate.
It also is very vague. Help in what way?
Helping to free something also sounds like it isn't free, but you set it
free. We are not doing this. We try to make people create thi
On 20.09.2015 21:29, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>>> @"we":
>>>> "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was
On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>> @"we":
>> "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that it
>> addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture").
>> "we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of us.
>> "together" overreaches in
On 18.09.2015 19:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> Robert, I basically agree with all your critiques of the current slogan,
> and the clunkiness of ", together" although it's still clear that "we"
> doesn't jump out as a welcome inclusiveness. In fact, I think it's weak
> enough that it's better to go wi
On 17.09.2015 18:55, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
> It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be
> heard.
My argument is that brevity, concision, simplicity and clarity are
qualities to care about. I don't assume they guarantee a good slogan -
but I think they indicate effecti
On 17.09.2015 06:13, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Copying my reply from the design list (this discussion does belong on
> the general discuss list)
>
> On 09/16/2015 03:54 AM, mray wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>>
>> It is time to have a fruitful discussion about ou
Hello everybody,
It is time to have a fruitful discussion about our slogan, we don't have
one - but we should. My current mock-ups just use "FUNDING A FREE
CULTURE" but that isn't anything that has been decided at all.
We are about to create promotional resources and eventually I'd like to
make u
On 13.07.2015 14:33, Peter Harpending wrote:
> In addition, I don't want to get into the practice of playing
> psychological tricks on our patrons. This isn't a casino, after all.
>
I don't have any trickery in mind. It is just another way to
transparently display the same thing. Having a backg
Another thought that crossed my mind is the payment frequency.
I can imagine there might be a positive psychological impact on a higher
frequency of paying. Instead of paying 15$ per month we could make it
50¢ a day.
There probably is a huge transaction overhead but I can imagine there
can be an e
Listening to a RMS talk reminded me that anonymity in payment processes
really matters. I think snowdrift.coop should offer anonymous payment,
too. I'm totally ignorant on the technical side of it in general, but
also concerning our own plans. Nevertheless there is a promising project
that seems to
On 18.06.2015 17:02, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> I don't see why we *need* losers. I think we *accept* that there will be
> losers and that's okay. Snowdrift.coop is largely a consensus-building
> engine that coordinates the community and discourages fragmentation.
> Those qualities are good. But I wo
Hi there,
I have two concerns:
1. We need losers.
2. Users decide who they are.
1.
We need losers because we can't make a commitment to the network effect
without embracing the fact that distribution will differ extremely, even
to a degree where by far MOST projects will not be "winners".
2.
We
On 02.06.2015 00:47, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> I propose:
>>>
>>> A. we have a one-click default pledge button
>>> B. we offer the more in-depth pledge options
>>> C. we present the pledges as "X per patron" and emphasize the value of
>>> the network effect
>>> D. we finish prototyping and designing
On 01.06.2015 17:40, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Here's my feeling for now: First, that doesn't remove the ability
> counteract the network effect, it just makes it more blunt, because
> people could still change their levels, it would only be system-wide.
You are right they, can use that option to coun
On 01.06.2015 20:06, Bryan Richter wrote:
> "Patron Alice clicks through to the project page, where she
> sees information about her pledge and its effect on overall
> contribution. Once there, she notices an extra control dialog, and she
> quickly learns that she can use it to increase her pledg
On 01.06.2015 08:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Glad to hear your support for this. I think you'll find it much easier
> to design the right experience around this simpler system.
>
> Now, I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but:
>
> I could imagine users setting a different def
Hi there,
I'm happy how simple things have become with the latest change. But the
scope of this remains something that makes me ponder: Do we want the
matching amount (minimum 0.1¢) project wide or account wide?
Account wide certainly has the charm of being the way simpler solution
but takes away
51 matches
Mail list logo
