Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 8, 2018. It is now read-only.

bring back takes in payday #4025

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor

@chadwhitacre chadwhitacre commented May 11, 2016

#3994

#4024#4026

Punchlist

  • rewrite process_takes
  • insert a process_baselines before process_takes
  • include members in MassPay; see get_ready_payout_routes_by_network
  • clean up test suite (depends on take_over in plumb takes #4023)
  • remake against master once plumb membership #4024 lands

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

chadwhitacre commented May 11, 2016

I'm looking at baselines (#3994 (comment)) here. ~owners can claim takes just like any other ~user. Should we just depend on that instead of implementing the baseline?

@mattbk
Copy link
Contributor

mattbk commented May 11, 2016

~owners can claim takes just like any other ~user. Should we just depend on that instead of implementing the baseline?

I like that, although maybe it should be set up so that no other takes are available until the owner takes at least one? (Temporal dependency rather than set initial $ dependency)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

maybe it should be set up so that no other takes are available until the owner takes at least one? (Temporal dependency rather than set initial $ dependency)

Since takes are proportional rather than absolute, there's no need for a temporal consideration; cf. point 2 under benefits. The problem with this is related to what @Changaco identified in terms of volatility in income for participants. Based on the user examples I cited in benefit (3), I think team owners will appreciate the stability of an absolute rather than a proportional baseline.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think team owners will appreciate the stability of an absolute rather than a proportional baseline.

This goes for Team Gratipay, even. We need ~$150/wk just to keep the lights on. If income dips down to $120 in a given week, then it should all go to ~Gratipay for operations. No?

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

[gratipay] $ grep xfail tests/py/test_billing_payday.py 
    @pytest.mark.xfail(reason="haven't migrated transfer_takes yet")
    @pytest.mark.xfail(reason="Don't think we'll need this anymore since we aren't using balanced, "
    @pytest.mark.xfail(reason="haven't migrated transfer_takes yet")
    @pytest.mark.xfail(reason="haven't migrated_transfer_takes yet")
    @pytest.mark.xfail(reason="haven't migrated take_over_balances yet")
[gratipay] $

@mattbk
Copy link
Contributor

mattbk commented May 11, 2016

We need ~$150/wk just to keep the lights on. If income dips down to $120 in a given week, then it should all go to ~Gratipay for operations.

That's the best argument for an absolute baseline.

This frees us up to implement additional logic in mixins rather than
running away with the team.py file.
What remains is user-facing in the about pages, etc.
@chadwhitacre chadwhitacre force-pushed the membership-plumbing branch from ca05a1d to 9db9e1a Compare May 12, 2016 03:06
@chadwhitacre chadwhitacre force-pushed the membership-plumbing branch from 9db9e1a to 064c0f4 Compare May 12, 2016 14:16
@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

on UPDATE of teams.baseline
  • for the owner:
    • taking
  • for all members:
    • taking
  • for the team:
    • distributing
    • surplus

@chadwhitacre chadwhitacre force-pushed the membership-plumbing branch 3 times, most recently from 687481b to 91a9ca1 Compare July 1, 2016 13:52
@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Scrapping for parts. #3994 (comment)

@chadwhitacre chadwhitacre deleted the takes-payday branch July 1, 2016 15:08
@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Redo: #4102.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants