Purpose of the Technology Operations circle

I posted this in Organisational Operations about the division of labour between the circles. The same post can’t be re-posted here . . so please read and discuss here in this circle.

Membership based on July 16 meeting:

I am taking the liberty to tag also the people who have been most involved so far as an invitation, not expectation:

Please fill in your availability for standing meetings (currently weekly).


I probably can’t do weekly tech op circle meetings as I struggle to find time for the check-in meeting as well now. However, I can probably inject another 10-15 hours at some point if the tasks are well defined and we need another technical push to get us over some line. I’ll be keeping an eye, thanks for setting this up.

I think we need to have a call this week to see what needs to be done to get everything started now. I will checkin with my colleagues to see how we can help with that.

Could 15:00 CEST on Wednesday/tomorrow work? Maybe a few minutes would be enough if we can define what needs to be done and where pieces are missing and how could pick up the work?


So many people think meet.coop is a good idea - I would really like us to show the way of how to “crowd source” technical work so that many cooperative folks can contribute small amounts of work to accomplish big things!

1 Like

I can be there during that time

So lets do a short meeting today/Tuesday at 15:00 CEST. Room: https://indigo.collocall.de/hen-o4x-pjy

1 Like

I have added this to this thread’s event, assuming @hng means today/Wednesday.

I understand this group doesn’t intend to meet weekly, but let’s have that as a standing time of when members are generally available, and perhaps a monthly meeting at this hour would be useful. It’s up to this Circle (that I am not involved in) to set up their own schedules.

As I have mentioned in chat, in response to @hng short term proposal for infra maintenance… I agree with his offer for have collocall take over maintenance in the immediate future, while other Circles get us ready to receive contributions and pay members. During this time, it’s important we have tech support to ensure timely attention to technical issues (e.g. monitoring, critical upgrades, address technical questions, etc.), while keeping a MVP on the tech side (no new features), and I believe @hng’s proposal is the best option we have on the table. This can also lead to more exchange of tech and alignment between our code bases for future cooperation.

In the meantime, it’d be helpful if @chris @decentral1se can indicate how they feel about this approach as they are much more involved in this area at the moment.

From Hypha side, as I mentioned before, I expect @elon @Yurko to have more capacity to contribute here mid-September. In the immediate future, we will try to stay aware of what’s going on.

Thanks to Collocall for offering to support this. Majorly appreciated.

My concerns are:

  1. AFAIK, it is not clear who is footing the bill for the ca.meet.coop server. If we’re going to invest in keeping this server it needs to be paid for and there needs to be a timeline for how long it will be paid for as most money coming into meet.coop hinges on the idea that there will be a turn-around soon. Those expectations need to be matched up and made transparent.

  2. The migration to Collocall apparently involves internal Collocall infrastructure work first (decoupling their tools from their setup) before they can make the move. That involves more work before the maintenance, upgrade and support work can happen. That is a bunch of unpaid work, until when is this sustainable for Collocall without return? That would be good make transparent because AFAIK they are using a different sytem to organise BBB (kubernetes) and that is another skill set and tooling. If in October Collocall need to pull out of the project, another migration needs to be arranged?

I’ve missed the previous discussions but I am wondering if it isn’t an idea to simply scale down, drop all the servers except ca.meet.coop (assuming it is properly funded) and then freeze the BBB version (except when critical security updates are required) and only apply system patches. Basically, a “tech freeze” with only a single server to keep an eye on until there is more capacity.

I can’t put more unpaid time into this so I am just throwing this into the mix, I hope it is helpful.

1 Like

Or, in other words, how do we plan to mitigate for another https://forum.meet.coop/t/webarchitects-committment-to-this-project/210.

I have no access yet to the wiki so I can not publish the minutes of todays meeting yet.

But whats important: The tech circle has decided to bring forward these two proposals to tomorrows all hands meeting:

  • Evaluate current servers and costs involved.
  • Take offer from ColloCall to take over management for two server for the next two months.

Our suggestion would be to do it the other way around. After evaluating the servers and cost ColloCall would reinstall these and integrate them into our infrastructure, that would mean regular updates, monitoring and all the features we have already built (e.g. multiple Greenlight containers per server), this would mean minimal effort for ColloCall and a state where meet.coop servers are managed. The next two months could than be used to get clients/users on to the server and get more funds in while the tech circle is figuring out how to decouple the ColloCall infrastructure for meet.coop so that the tech circle can manage the servers independently from ColloCall. A great part of the time for setting up the server and the management could be part of ColloCalls “membership fee”.


Minutes of the Technology Circle meeting can be found in the wiki now: https://wiki.meet.coop/wiki/22nd_July_2020_Technology


That post appears to have disappeared. What did it say?

It’s a post in a private channel between Producer members.

1 Like

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining.