We *do* have extra fees: #2629

[chadwhitacre]

It's disingenuous to say in our pitch that we have "no extra fees," when we are most definitely expecting users to pay us for using Gittip.

[chadwhitacre]

cc: @dsernst @ericmeltzer @tshepang et al.

[ericmeltzer]

a fee is non-optional, asking users to voluntarily pay (and not in the
annoying sense of "a suggested donation" where its pretty much mandatory,
but a truly optional payment) does not a fee make.

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.com
wrote:

cc: @dsernst https://github.com/dsernst @ericmeltzer
https://github.com/ericmeltzer @tshepang https://github.com/tshepang
et al.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2641 (comment)
.

Eric Meltzer
@wheatpond https://twitter.com/wheatpond
http://theopencompany.net
+1 408 874 6552

[chadwhitacre]

@ericmeltzer So to what extent does #2629, which is landing imminently, constitute an annoying "suggested donation"?

[chadwhitacre]

Screenshot:

[chadwhitacre]

Note the juxtaposition of the "support Gittip" call to action on the right with "no extra fees" on the left.

[chadwhitacre]

(Though I'll also mention that the CTA is only shown to authenticated "free riders," people who use Gittip without paying for it.)

[chadwhitacre]

(It's not shown to everybody.)

[tshepang]

I agree with @ericmeltzer here... there are no extra fees for using Gittip. Weird you'd even raise this @whit537. What is so concerning?

[chadwhitacre]

@tshepang:

Note the juxtaposition of the "support Gittip" call to action on the right with "no extra fees" on the left.

[chadwhitacre]

What if we said, "no hard fees" instead of "no extra fees."

[chadwhitacre]

I guess we lose extra, which had a point: we do have fees from payment processors that we pass through.

[chadwhitacre]

"no required fee"?

[chadwhitacre]

Singular fee applying only to us, not payment processor?

[chadwhitacre]

Opposite of required being optional, so consonant with #2629?

[ericmeltzer]

I like that we're being vigilant about not bulshitting people. I do think
that any of the suggested terms are fine:no fee, no extra fees.. etc

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.com
wrote:

"no required fee"?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2641 (comment)
.

Eric Meltzer
@wheatpond https://twitter.com/wheatpond
http://theopencompany.net
+1 408 874 6552

[Changaco]

I'm in favor of not changing anything. Like it's been said a voluntary contribution isn't exactly a fee.

[kaguillera]

I am also in favor of leaving it as it is. For me a “fee” is the compulsory payment for a good or service provided. Since the request for a donation is not compulsory but a suggestion it is not a “fee” .
The users can ignore it just as I am sure a number of people who use wikipedia on a daily bases never donate money to the site. And if they do would they consider it a fee or a donation?

My 2 cents

On Aug 15, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Changaco notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm in favor of not changing anything. Like it's been said a voluntary contribution isn't exactly a fee.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[tshepang]

Didn't know what juxtaposition meant till now, but anyways, you really are concerned about a non-issue @whit537.

[chadwhitacre]

Okay, closing for now. I may want to revisit nomenclature in the future. I'm liking "voluntary payments."