switch to opt-in

[chadwhitacre]

Gittip.com is currently opt-out, and that's not cool. See below for discussion.

Original:

We've got a fine line to toe. Kachinga pissed people off by collecting money on their behalf without explicit permission. We're a bit different (donor pays fee vs. cut to recipient, coop vs. corp) but it remains to be seen whether we're different enough.

Even if the world is okay with us being opt-out instead of opt-in, we still need an opt-out mechanism. This would involve claiming an account and then clicking a big red "Stop taking donations for me" button.

(This started as #26 but then got derailed. Reticketing.)

[thiloplanz]

I think it should be opt-in. Right now (please correct me if I am wrong), you are collecting tips even for unclaimed accounts. Same problem as with Kachingle (mitigated by lower fees). What happens if they remain unclaimed? The only proper thing to do is to return the money to the donors. Is there such a mechanism in place?

I like how Flattr is doing it: Unclaimed accounts can be "flattred", but no money is credited to them until the account is claimed. But everyone can see the number of people that would like to donate here (in your case, you could even add a monetary value, I suppose). And once it is claimed, the donations (for the current period, not for the past) becomes active.

So ideally, in Gittip, you could set aside an amount for unclaimed projects, but it would be greyed-out or something, and at the end of the week would not be actually paid out, becoming active automatically once the account is claimed.

[jefftriplett]

+1 to being opt-in only. I signed up only so I could make sure I can't be tipped.

[chadwhitacre]

Another data point: http://blog.readability.com/2012/06/announcement/

[chadwhitacre]

Regarding the question of unclaimed tips raised in the Readability link, with Gittip the straightforward option when someone opts out would be for unclaimed money to revert to the donor. So when you opt out, your balance would go to zero, and your donors' balances would increase in the amount of their gift(s) to you. Their positive balance would then be used to fund their other tips going forward.

[chadwhitacre]

@jefftriplett Sorry that's not implemented yet. I'll make that a priority.

[bokmann]

Collecting money using my name on my behalf without my knowledge or consent is unethical in any medium. Opt-in, or be prepared for backlash.

[jtauber]

Is there a distinction to be made, though, between allowing someone to pledge (for if/when the recipient does join) versus actual tipping? I have no problem committing to tip someone that isn't on the site (yet) if you aren't actually collecting the money.

[chadwhitacre]

From @mitsuhiko via IRC:

[1:48pm] mitsuhiko: whit537: i like the idea, but i think it's very intransparent right now
[1:48pm] whit537: What needs to happen to make it transparent?
[1:48pm] whit537: I want to be transparent. :-)
[1:48pm] mitsuhiko: whit537: opt-in only, if a user did not opt in an someone wants to tip him, 
         send him a message on github
[1:49pm] mitsuhiko: show exactly how money is transferred to people
[1:49pm] mitsuhiko: because that part is still something that does not make sense to me

At which point I linked to the billing module.

[bokmann]

a github message that said "Bokmann wanted to tip you but couldn't! Go opt-in at gittip.com" would be much better then default opt-in.

[jtauber]

@bokmann so the key there is: the tipper can still state their desire to tip, even if the person hasn't opted-in. and the question is: does that stated desire get recorded as a pledge for if/when the person does opt in?

[chadwhitacre]

Allow me to play devil's advocate: It's not your money. It's my money, and I want to give it to you anonymously as part of a crowd-sourced gift. Who are you to tell me I can't?

You're free to accept or reject the gift, of course. But Gittip isn't a corporation that is profiting off of your name. Gittip is (planned as) a cooperative for the escrow of anonymous crowd-sourced gifts. And the crowd owns Gittip--the members of the cooperative are those who aggregate their money through it. The fee a donor pays when they post money is their membership fee in the cooperative.

Gittip isn't just "Kachingle (mitigated by lower fees)" (@thiloplanz). It's a cooperative for the mutual benefit of donors.

Gittip isn't "collecting money on [your] behalf" (@bokmann). Gittip is aggregating money on its members' behalf.

[chadwhitacre]

So that's the hard line, and I'd like to not take it. :-)

I think you're right, @bokmann (et al.), that opt-out will result in a significant backlash, and rightly so. I'm committed to the cooperative model, but a cooperative that acts selfishly is no better than a corporation that does.

I'm editing this ticket to reflect a decision to be opt-in.