I’m really hesitant to vote on this. I agree with qualifications. I want us to keep polling one another on things we can completely support without qualification. Those things become the set defining features within which we discuss other things.
So, I just have a concern about the wording here. If this poll is meant to say “are you willing to add this idea to the set decisions for the mechanism?” My answer is “no”. I think a starting default set of pledge levels makes sense, but whether some projects really deviate from that in their set, I’m not decided on that. It might be fine enough.
I’m okay with niche projects and also projects that just want 10-cents from a huge crowd. Maybe even allowing eventually projects to limit pledges to such tiny numbers.
I don’t want to discuss that here, but I wanted to understand the goal of the poll. Because I do agree that at least for beta, we probably want to not have tons of variation in the pledge options as people get used to the system. But I’m not sure.
No, it’s exactly what it says. “Do you agree with that sentence?”
My motivation was to get feedback on that, because i got negative feedback on other conclusion based on that assumption. I’m still not sure if people understand my concerns and agree that we should address them in some way. But i have said everything and want to move on.
Well, I think I’d wish for a “partly agree” and maybe “not sure” answer. I don’t want to agree too strongly, but I don’t disagree really. I’m undecided. I was uncomfortable just saying “no” in that case.
I expected most to think that projects should be able to choose levels, because that’s what they said in the responses above (which was why I included the bullet point about “give projects flexibility” in my poll — you were the only person arguing for same levels across all projects, as far as I saw). I interpreted the lack of response as people not getting around to responding yet, not that they had changed their position.