Edit TOS to decouple payins and payouts #4117
Conversation
|
The way this reads to me is that TWYW is not required, only optional. That leaves the open work descriptions. Are we loosening "open" to mean "transparent" (as in gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#432 (comment))? Level 3: Open Payouts ← "open work" according to our current definition If so, how do we allow Level 0--is it enough that the goal of Gratipay is to encourage Level 0 Teams to increase openness? |
|
If I get a chance I'll try to work Levels 1-3 in there, otherwise anyone else is welcome to try. |
| @@ -38,60 +38,59 @@ these Terms. | |||
| 1. The Gratipay Model and General Rules | |||
|
|
|||
| 1. The Service is a platform to enable Teams of Gratipay Participants to | |||
| receive payments to fund Open Work. Open Work means that the Team provides | |||
| receive payments to fund **Open Work. Open Work means that the Team provides | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This definition of "Open Work" needs to be modified to include transparent work, or removed and "work" left in its place.
Or do we drop "open" entirely, and leave that under brand fit, with the intention of later separately adding in official support for levels of openness for teams that are approved under brand fit? (gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#432 (comment)) |
|
Closing in. Need to define "Take-What-You-Want" payouts, or leave TWYW out and leave payout method open-ended. |
|
82dddf1 due to
from gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#432 (comment). Which means we'll need to change team review (gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#802, gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#803) and the team application, as well as the front page tagline. |
I think we can leave TWYW out of the TOS, which allows for future support of other distribution methods. |
|
Looks good to me...do have to get it cleared by our legal department 😉 before we merge this?? |
Yeah, we said we'd send a version to look at. I think the idea is to get all the Decouple PRs ready to go and then merge them all at once (this milestone spans multiple repos, otherwise I imagine we could do it as one PR). |
|
I figured that we would have wanted to finish the Decouple PR before making this public...so I guess this is blocked for now then. |
|
Taking a look at this ... |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
tos-decouple
branch
from
f8d5a22
to
2b0ce86
Compare
|
Rebased on latest master. Previous head was f8d5a22. |
|
Hmmm ... so "Teams" doesn't really fit anymore, is one thing. That made sense when we required open work, but for "teams of one" shouldn't we just call them something besides teams? |
|
Maybe "Project" instead of Team? |
|
"Project" seems pretty standard and self-explanatory. Does it cover "teams of one" who do multiple things? E.g., "Alice's Truckstop, Shoe Repair, and Gumball Factory" isn't a "project," it's another type of entity. |
|
"Organization"? "Receiver"? |
|
When a team of one signs up, they don't want to sign up twice (Participant and Team). They want to sign up once and start accepting payments. Hmm ... |
|
Do we wanna get into #3852 here? |
|
On the other hand, we do have bbatsov with https://gratipay.com/cider/ That's a pretty clear "person" and "project" distinction. |
|
At one point I think I suggested "Brand" as the thing that receives money. Would that cover CIDER as well as Alice's TS & G? |
|
The Participant is really about the legal entity, the "Alice Enterprises, LLC" that is DBA "Alice's Truckstop, Shoeshine, and Gumballs." |
|
bbatsov seems to have made the explicit choice to [do what we intended and] make a team for each project. We have at least a few people under "blocked by 432" like gratipay/project-review#122. Some of the comments on those teams have been "I don't even know if any of my tiny repos are going somewhere, so why set up a team for each one?" |
In fact, we have $100k+ of project owners' money in escrow, and our best understanding at this point is that that's not a problem in itself. That'll be something we get to the bottom of with a specialist when the time comes. For now these terms are simply inaccurate.
As it stood, we were referring to "each Project" before actually defining the term.
|
Alright, I made a pass through! Hopefully we are converging? :-) Here's the diff with my latest changes. Amidst some tinkering, the two main changes to look for are: |
|
I have no comments. |
|
For some reason github is not letting me comment inline, so just a few
quick points:
- I find the sentence that defines the Work to be quite awkward now. If
you don't like where it was, I might just remove the "may establish a
project" phrase altogether; that's less a part of the agreement and more a
feature of the service, so I don't think it needs to be in the TOS at all.
- If you don't like "may only" in the discussion of making payments, can I
suggest "solely"? ("solely because of their collaboration...", dropping the
"for no other reason".
Otherwise looks good.
…On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:19 PM mattbk ***@***.***> wrote:
I have no comments.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4117 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAoUPamm053Tre997p2TbvJi6lUpPIArks5rDLLqgaJpZM4JxCGS>
.
|
Okay. Can we live with 9361562? I don't like saying just, "each Project" there, because we haven't yet introduced the concept of a Project at that point (have we?). "Each of what Projects?"
Hmm ... dcea849 and 2594b15 were an attempt to harmonize 3.ii and 5.i with 4.ii, based on your comment at #4117 (comment) but then also at #4117 (comment):
Am I missing a difference between 3.ii and 4.ii that explains why we wouldn't want them to be parallel with each other one way or another? |
|
No explanation for the inconsistency re "for no other reason", purely that
on re-read in fuller context I realized my own phrasing was somewhat
awkward. Fine to leave in the earlier phrasing.
…On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:48 PM Chad Whitacre ***@***.***> wrote:
I find the sentence that defines the Work to be quite awkward now.
Okay. Can we live with 9361562
<9361562>?
I don't like saying just, "each Project" there, because we haven't yet
introduced the concept of a Project at that point (have we?). "Each of
*what* Projects?"
If you don't like "may only" in the discussion of making payments, can I
suggest "solely"? ("solely because of their collaboration...", dropping the
"for no other reason".
Hmm ... dcea849
<dcea849>
and 2594b15
<2594b15>
were an attempt to harmonize 3.ii and 5.i with 4.ii, based on your comment
at #4117 (comment)
<#4117 (comment)>
but then also at #4117 (comment)
<#4117 (comment)>:
May also be more clear to switch from "exclusively because of..." to
"because of ... , and for no other reason", but that's a matter of taste.
Am I missing a difference between 3.ii and 4.ii that explains why we
wouldn't want them to be parallel with each other one way or another?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4117 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAoUPeqMRjpSOiU0S5sL05jWG-kye8-cks5rDNYJgaJpZM4JxCGS>
.
|
|
Good job! Three months to the day. 😁 |
chadwhitacre
changed the base branch from
master
to
relax-open-work-requirement
#4117 (comment) - [x] A participant may give money to a Project..." this clause is the only mention of money in the entire document; other similar statements make reference to payments, not "money". Probably not a huge issue but maybe something to flag to the payments attorney, or just go ahead and make consistent. - [x] "The Service is a platform to facilitate this agreement" - earlier, we say the Service is a platform to facilitate payments. I think we should drop/rewrite the first, since I presume this later, repeated phrasing about facilitating the agreement was tailored to address financial regulation concerns. - [x] "Projects ... must be consistent" and "Gratipay reserves the right..." both seem like they should be in general terms, since they apply to other Collaborators as well, not just Project Owners. - [x] The three sections titled "Obligations" should be retitled something like "Terms for Givers..." etc., since they contain things beyond obligations. - [x] The Project is not a legal entity; would it be more accurate to say the agreement is with the Project Owner?
#4117 (comment) - [x] Is a Project Owner also a Collaborator? (I think yes, but not 100% clear.) - [x] Is there an earlier action (before payment) that would make sense for Collaborators to form an agreement with the Project to collaborate? It's somewhat un-natural to say that accepting payment is what forms the agreement; usually the agreement precedes the payment.
Addresses - #4117 (comment) - #4117 (comment) - #4117 (comment)
Addresses - #4117 (comment) - #4117 (comment) - #4117 (comment) - #4117 (comment)
As brought up by gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#204 and discussed at #4117 (comment).
Addresses #4117 (comment).
Per #4117 (comment). Now each item can be referred to by number/letter, rather than as a whole.
gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#432 (comment)
Stub out a PR for changes.
Related milestones:
Todo
terms-of-service.spt.