[HCoop-Discuss] [docelic,ntk] Balances policy

[docelic]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:02:38PM -0500, Adam Chlipala wrote:
> Nathan Kennedy wrote:
> > I don't think we should disable anything until there has been at least a 
> > month of having a negative balance.  As long as they have covered the 
> > deposit and we're not at risk at that point of being stuck with a bad 
> > debt, let's not be too harsh about this.  Partially disabling services 
> > at some point prior to totally kicking the deliquent member out and 
> > disabling everything is a good idea, but not the instant the balance 
> > drops below zero.
> >   
> 
> OK, so, just to make sure, you're talking about new-style-balances, not 
> old-style-balances, so that we still have two months' dues stored up for 
> this person at the point where we start trying to get his attention?  If 
> so, then the idea has my vote.

Yes as I understand it Nathan's talking about new-style balances, where
1 month of having negative balance means still having two months
deposit.

I'd only make one change though, I'd make that "2 months being on
negative balance", so that we prolong the "warning" period as
much as possible. (Have 1 month deposit "guaranteed", not 2).

If the pledges system reduces person's pledge to 1, then disabling
member's services 1 month before his deposit runs out is guaranteed
not to lead us into per-member minus.

-doc