raise maximum tip amount to $1,000 for groups

[chadwhitacre]

We have a cap on the amount you can give each week, in order to prevent any one giver from over-influencing a receivers receipts. At first the cap was $1.28, then we raised it to $24 (blog), then to $100 (#1041). On #1255 we discussed removing the max entirely, but I decided not to. On #266 we have the idea of computing the max dynamically as a percentage of the total.

This ticket is about differentiating between individual and group accounts, and raising the max for groups to $1,000 per week. The idea is that groups are likely to deal in larger volumes overall than individuals.

[mvdkleijn]

I thought the cap was a per receiver cap?

[chadwhitacre]

Yup. By "group" I mean a plural receiver, e.g.: https://www.gittip.com/readthedocs/.

[tshepang]

Shouldn't plural receivers be Teams? Am I missing something?

Also, how can one tell if a receiver is a Group (without historical knowledge)?

[mvdkleijn]

Please note that #1493 is relevant to this discussion. I believe @tshepang is right in that groups are Teams if we don't count funds. Though funds can be ’plural receivers’ too. However, I believe funds should not have a maximum or at the very least a high percentile like in #266 (especially if communities become automatic funds)

[chadwhitacre]

+1 from @adambrault via [email protected].

[chadwhitacre]

Shouldn't plural receivers be Teams? Am I missing something?

Also, how can one tell if a receiver is a Group (without historical knowledge)?

I call a participant a "Group" if number=='plural'. You can tell because their profile says "We are" instead of "I am."

A Team is a Group with members added on the "Members" tab.

[chadwhitacre]

+2 from @rummik @duckinator in IRC.

[rcross]

+1

[rummik]

I think we should keep things simple, and just have the limit be tied to the number of members on a team. So start it at $100, then multiply the amount by the number of team members ($100 * members). Or, again, start at $100, then add $50 for every additional team member ($100 + (members - 1) * $50)

[rummik]

Both ways keep the funding from coming from one place, but also let it expand as necessary. I kind of like the second one better for that reason, though I'd argue for the first one ($100 per member), since it keeps the rules basically the same for giving to an individual as giving to a group.

[tshepang]

@rummik $100 * members sounds like a great idea.

[chadwhitacre]

We have a loooottttt of members on the Gittip team and only a handful that are actually taking significant money. Also, this would incentivize adding tons of people just to up the limit. Should we take these two points into account?

[rummik]

@whit537 True, but just because there's a lot of people on the team doesn't mean anyone's going to tip that amount. The idea is to just make it possible.

[seanlinsley]

Arbitrary rules that are simple are better than arbitrary rules that are complex. If we're to have a limit at all, it should be consistent to all teams, or to all accounts in general.

[rummik]

@seanlinsley The idea would be more to make it more consistent to the number of people involved. Right now we're basically saying that you can only gift $100 to 50 people if they're on a team, but you can gift $5000 if you give to each one individually

[seanlinsley]

Are there organizations like &yet that are asking for this? Is there any point discussing it right now?

[rummik]

Yeah, I don't think it's needed immediately. Card processing fees are pretty ridiculous for that kind of money :P

[tshepang]

As @rummik says, I think we should keep it simple. If there are problems along the line, let them be fixed as they come. The two potential issues @whit537 mentions do not sound like things we should concern ourselves with; not for now at least.

[duckinator]

I agree that it should be simple. as many people have said so far. $100 * members sounds like the best approach, to me, for the reason @rummik pointed out.

[seanlinsley]

$100 * members isn't simple though. It's arbitrary, and complex. $100 or $1000 is arbitrary and simple.

By complex I mean it's complex for a given team to understand and manage.

[duckinator]

$100 * members is more consistent with everything else.

Why should you be limited to giving somebody 1/<number of team members> of what you otherwise would, just because they're working with other people?

Raising it to $1000 doesn't really change that, it just delays it. The Gittip team has 82 members. If we switched to that rule, you could only give each Gittip team member $12.19 max.

The only way around that would be to actively go out of your way and start, basically, tracking who's in what team on your own, and tipping them directly. How is that a better approach?

[chadwhitacre]

I like a flat number because it's simple, as @seanlinsley suggests. Remember that teams are high-trust groups and are thus subject to Dunbar's number, etc. We should think in terms of:

• 70% of teams having less than 15 members
• 95% of teams having less than 150 members
• 100% of teams having less than 500 members

I would rather see a flat number like $1,000 per team to keep it simple.

[chadwhitacre]

@duckinator Most of the Gittip team's 82 members are not active.

[rummik]

@seanlinsley I'd argue that $100 * members isn't arbitrary. I'd also argue that even though it might be more complex than just $1,000, it seems more intuitive to me, since that way we're going by the $100 maximum per person that we seem to be using everywhere else.

@whit537 I think most people assume that if someone's on a team they're active. I know that's how I plan to use it with Chameleoid :P

[duckinator]

@seanlinsley @whit537 I agree with @rummik on both accounts. And that is also how I plan to use it with Inatri.

[chadwhitacre]

Heard from @gdb in private email and have permission from he and @indirect to move the conversation here:

I'm CTO at Stripe. I've been following Gittip for a while, and think you are doing cool stuff. We are currently talking with Andre from Bundler about donating a relatively large sum ($2,500/month) via
Gittip. (We use Bundler heavily, and want him to have more time to focus on improvements.) Looks like Gittip limits you to $100/week — would it be possible for us to get those limits bumped?

Options I see:

• Remove the limit entirely.
• Remove it for plural receivers.
• Raise the limit in one case or another without removing it entirely.

Question for @indirect @gdb: Have you been talking about a donation straight to @indirect, or to the @bundler org? As a P.S., last week we soft-launched initial support for linking a GitHub org to a Gittip account (#871).

We've lived with the per-gift constraint for two years now. Is it still an essential part of Gittip? What happens if we retire that constraint?

[gdb]

The plan is a donation to @bundler.

[chadwhitacre]

@gdb Okay, thanks for the clarification.

[chadwhitacre]

I mean, the short answer is yes: it's time to open the pipes between companies and projects. The open question is whether we want to keep any constraint in place.

[patcon]

Firstly: That is rad @gdb!

Idea: quietly remove limit for now to unblock Stripe, then work on a better solution later -- ie. higher limit for team giving based on team size, or perhapshigher limits for users based on trustcloud scores?

[chadwhitacre]

IRC

[seanlinsley]

I think we should keep the $100 limit to individuals, and $1000 to teams. We simply don’t have the financial backing to be able to handle chargebacks etc at the higher dollar amounts.

[chadwhitacre]

+1 for raising/removing the limit from @progrium on Twitter.

[chadwhitacre]

+1 from @bmann via Twitter.

[chrisdev]

👍 for raising the limit. If a limit is retained It should be reviewed periodically in any case

[chadwhitacre]

+1 from @ehmatthes on Twitter.

[seanlinsley]

#2433 is now on production, allowing teams to be tipped up to $1000 🍻

[chadwhitacre]

There ya go, @gdb @indirect. Have fun. Thanks for using Gittip! :-)

[gdb]

Awesome, thanks!

On Friday, May 23, 2014, Chad Whitacre [email protected] wrote:

There ya go, @gdb https://github.com/gdb @indirecthttps://github.com/indirect.
Have fun. Thanks for using Gittip! :-)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1378#issuecomment-44057646
.

Sent from mobile

[chadwhitacre]

@gdb Sure thing. I expect you'll hit other pain points trying to give as a company through Gittip. Twitter is a great way to ping me/us when you do. :-)

[ghost]

There is no reason to have artificial limitations. Get rid of the limit entirely.

[chadwhitacre]

@ghost I've added a +1 for you over on #1255.