On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:08:54PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On August 31, 2016 6:38:46 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >> On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray wrote:
> >> >On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> >> On 08
On August 31, 2016 6:38:46 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>> On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray wrote:
>> >
>> >On 16.08.2016 00:03, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> On 08/10/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 09.08.2016 22:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:03:38AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
> On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray 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
On August 20, 2016 8:27:09 AM EDT, mray 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
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 l
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:03:15PM -0700, 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
>
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
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 August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
> wrote:
> >I'd add that whether we display a minimum charge or a maximum
> >percentage, the fact is that we're using the percentage as our
> >guide as to what's a reasonable threshold, so it's more informative
> >to display a percentage, an
On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, 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".
On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, 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
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
On August 9, 2016 10:51:36 PM GMT+03:00, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 12:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
>>> space to think about them separately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 08/09/2016 12:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
>>
>> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
>> space to think about them separately.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
>> amo
On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>
> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
> space to think about them separately.
>
>
>
> Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
> amount, or as a ratio? I think it's clear that the amount shoul
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:56:30AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> > On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, t
On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>>
>>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, to help
>>> adapt to future fee differences. That being the case, I propose we
On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>
>
> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 0
On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> >>> What happens if
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>> What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the
> >>> minimum
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>> Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
> >>> reg
On 08/03/2016 06:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> I want to propose my solution as the *final* one for MVP: The limit is
> accepted as a hard limit for any charge in any given month, because it
> makes things as easy and reliable as possible for the patrons. Whenever
> there needs to be a carry-over,
On 08/03/2016 05:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Whenever there needs to be a carry-over, we use the difference
> between a month's charges and any outstanding carry-over from
> previous to reach up to the max, and thus widdle-away the carry-over >
over multiple months if need be.
Error in my wording:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
-snip-
Though I don't think it's the best, I'm satisfied with this plan for
MVP.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On 08/03/2016 04:50 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> Paraphrasing all my quotes because context is way too long already.
>
> mray said:
>> Having a rollover cause unmatching is an extreme edge case
>
> If that's true, going over your limit from a rollover is an extreme edge
> case, too.
>
> I think t
Paraphrasing all my quotes because context is way too long already.
mray said:
Having a rollover cause unmatching is an extreme edge case
If that's true, going over your limit from a rollover is an extreme
edge case, too.
I think this is an edge case, but not an extreme one. If my limit is
On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>> Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
>>> regardless of rollover mechanism.
>>>
>>> What happens if someone wants
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
regardless of rollover mechanism.
What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the
minimum
credit card charge
On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
> regardless of rollover mechanism.
>
> What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the minimum
> credit card charge?
>
We would not allow such a low limit. The ran
Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
regardless of rollover mechanism.
What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the minimum
credit card charge?
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
h
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 make
sense - I expect this to be low.
For this lo
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 make
>>> sense - I expect this to be low.
>>> For this low amount of money to trigger an unfortunate un-mat
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
>> total would have to be full to
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
> total would have to be full to the brim already. This will hardly
> happen,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:27:18AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) 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 over
> >>> matches shou
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
On 08/02/2016 07:13 PM, 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 o
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 over
matches should *not* be counted towards your monthly
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 over
> matches should *not* be counted towards your monthly limit, but fees
> should, in their entirety.
>
Well
I have thoughts now!
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote:
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 sac
I could go either way on that, then, as long as we disclose it. I
mean, if I set a $20 maximum it could mean before fees or after fees,
but we just need to let users know which one we choose.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Aaron Wolf wrot
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
On 08/02/2016 05:58 PM, James Sheldon wrote:
When are transaction fees charged? When you add money or when it is
assigned to a project?
This is assuming a charge-in-arrears approach where we avoid holding
money which has all sorts of legal
On 08/02/2016 05:58 PM, James Sheldon wrote:
> When are transaction fees charged? When you add money or when it is
> assigned to a project?
>
This is assuming a charge-in-arrears approach where we avoid holding
money which has all sorts of legal challenges once we go beyond our one
project. So,
When are transaction fees charged? When you add money or when it is
assigned to a project?
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote:
>> During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works.
>> I just want to voice my opinion on how
On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, mray wrote:
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 se
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
