[HCoop-Discuss] [docelic, ntk] Cracking down on negative balances

[Nathan Kennedy]

Michael Olson wrote:
> Adam Chlipala <adamc at hcoop.net> 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