I am curious if I can have multiple moderators on my plan. I would like to be able to specify a list of users who can act as moderators in my rooms. Is this possible? Zoom enables something like this with being able to share a host key from a pro account, where anyone with the key can claim host once they join a room, and in any room created by that host account…
Just did a bit more searching on my own. It looks like it’s either everyone joins a room as a mod, or only the host can join that room as a mod. I was hoping that a list of users might be able to act as a mod for a room, but maybe this isn’t possible? Can multiple users be the owner of a single room? that might be a work-around? Or I guess a group could just share an email and account, and anyone who needs to act as mod would have to log in with that account?
I’m hoping to stay within fair use with this, we really only have a few rooms with light usage so far, but being able to support this use case where multiple users can act as a mod in a room that isn’t locked down with an access code, and where anyone can start the meeting… I guess if multiple users could be the owner then this would also be useful even in cases where an owner is needed to open up the room before others can join…
I think there are a few possible solutions to your needs:
- When you’re logged into Greenlight (where you go to access your BBB room), Click on the 3 little dots next to your room name, then Room Settings, and enable “All users join as moderators”
- When you’re in a meeting, right click on the round icon of the User/s you want to be moderators and bump them up to Moderators
I don’t think so no.
Hopefully one of the options above will work for you?
No, this doesn’t quite enable the use case. I don’t want to make everyone a moderator… I want a specified finite list of users to be able to join as moderators like I do as the owner. These moderators could then make others moderators. So basically I want your #2, but for more users than just me as the owner. I effectively want multiple “owners” of the room. (I really don’t like this term “owner” here btw not sure if can be changed)
Basically, I don’t want me to be the only one who can show up to a room that I co-host with others, and make others moderators. I want others to be able to do that, but not everyone. There is an option to require the owner, or maybe moderator, to “open” a room before others can join. This sounds useful, but again, I don’t want to be the singular bottleneck to opening rooms I co-host with others. Sometimes I won’t be able to attend regular meetings that we create a dedicated room for… But that’s ok, because I am only one of a group of hosts/facilitators. So if a finite list of moderators/owners, maybe each with greenlight accounts, could “open” a shared room to let others in, that would be great.
Maybe BBB+greenlight is more designed for like traditional educational situations whether there is one teacher/professor and everyone else are students? This co-host/co-facilitation/co-moderation situation doesn’t seem to be easily afforded right now… Unless I’m still missing something or some hack can be done in the backend or with configs.
I guess it’s mostly because I want to run recurring meetings in the same room, some of which I might miss. For one-off meetings that I will be attending, then I don’t have an issue.
There is a way to nominate a handful of people in advance as moderators, able to open a room. In Greenlight, you can share a room with a list of people. However, only folks who are known to the Greenlight instance can be included in that list.
That is, they must also be members of meet.coop, on the same server (ca/de).
Otherwise, like Oli said, moderators can be upgraded by the initial moderaor, once they are in the room as participants.
Thanks @mikemh , I think I had misinterpreted the documentation around how the “shared access” feature can be used. You are correct, if access is shared, then anyone it is shared with can “start” the room. I wasn’t able to determine if they would also become a moderator if there weren’t the owner.
So I can sort of see a path to the use-case I desire now. It would require being able to add new users to the greenlight system as “moderators”. Maybe a new user type could be created for this by doing the following?
Maybe a paid meet.coop account could include being able to add a certain number of moderators for free? These wouldn’t be full accounts, and this could be specified by what permissions the “moderator” role is given. I can see from the link above that a role can have most of the powerful permissions removed. Things like being able to modify other users or roles, or being able to create new rooms…
Maybe I could help test some of this out? If a moderator role can be created, I could provide another email of mine to test with. I would like to know if I start a room with a user who is just a “moderator” (a new role with this name, not the BBB technical term), if I that user has moderation powers by default or not.
I can see it could be a useful feature,to be able to give colleagues - who are not meet.coop member themselves - ‘the key’ to open a room you’ve created. For regular gatherings, where you the owner are not always available ‘to open up’.
inviting Tech circle to comment here @Yurko @dvdjaco
Hi @robert.best that’s a great usecase that I perceive quite a few collectives would share with you. As Mike explains " In Greenlight, you can share a room with a list of people." And at the moment that only works with people who have registered as members of meet.coop on the same Greenlight instance. So that’s of limited usefulness for your case I understand.
Then, on our roadmap we have the Single Sign On (SSO) identity server; this will allow us all with one account to get access to the various services (forum, de.meet.coop, ca.meet.coop, demo, …) depending on their membership contributions. We could then create a membership category that allows these members to share their rooms with others.
This IS the next challenge on our roadmap, and as you may have seen elsewhere on the forum, we are currently discussing how we scope the first part of this beast. But we are definitely going that way. Does this make sense for you?