a while ago from femProcomuns we proposed offering individual meet.coop accounts integrated in our CommonsCloud service. CommonsCloud users become members of the femProcomuns coop and can access a number of services (Nextcloud, discourse, phabricator, etc.). We agreed that CommonsCloud would offer individual meet.coop accounts at the listed price and share the revenue 50-50 with meet.coop.
We’re ready to offer this service, in fact we’ve been using it internally for a few days: the greenlight instance at https://meet.commonscloud.coop is integrated with the CommonsCloud LDAP and uses meet.coop’s BBB as a backend. This greenlight instance currently runs in CommonsCloud infrastructure, although the plan was to move it to meet.coop’s infra once it was well tested.
What we realized in the last weeks is that it would make a lot of sense to offer multi-user accounts through CommonsCloud in a similar fashion, since we encourage collectives to get multi-user accounts for our other services so that they can manage the services themselves. The technical part would be very easy, and these greenlight instances could be run in the CommonsCloud infrastructure until we’re ready to move them into meet.coop’s.
So my proposal is to extend the previous agreement to multi-user accounts: CommonsCloud/femProcomuns manages user/collective onboarding and payments (and for the time being deploying and running the Greenlight instances), and once every 3 months we transfer 50% of the revenue to meet.coop.
Sorry for the wall of text What do you all think?
Is the interface for this just the BBB shared secret? There is no cost (other than the Meet.coop BBB infra management and monitoring) to Meet.coop, correct? In this case, the Greenlight is managed by femPro and the user support is also direct to femPro and not to firstname.lastname@example.org or our forum?
As this is a trial, the 50% sounds ok to me, but probably it needs to be a Meet.coop membership discussion to set these rates around Q1/Q2.
yes - pending the answers to the Qs Ben raises I think this is OK
Good work on the LDAP - maybe Meet.coop can learn something from your work on that…
Yes, femProcomuns deploys these Greenlight instances using only the BBB shared secret (which is something we’d like to do differently but would mean building an interface between BBB and the API consumers).
The immediate cost for meet.coop is only the load increase in BBB associated with those new users. Onboarding, support and admin costs would go to femProcomuns.
We’re deploying and running the GL instances in femProcomuns infrastructure but moving forward I’d like to move them to the meet.coop realm (not until we decouple from Collocall’s infrastructure, I don’t want to create additional overhead for them with non-standard configurations).
We can review this last point together with the revenue sharing % when we reconcile these accounts after 3 months.
This sounds like a good plan and timeline to me, as long as good cool with tech folks. Thanks for developing this.
So I understand femProcomuns can offer the multi-user account option as well, but the revenue sharing will be under review and can be changed in Q1/Q2. That maybe a good opportunity for all involved.
in terms of marketing, femProcomuns has started to offer meet.coop through its cooperative cloud group CommonsCloud.coop with the following details:
- user members of femProcomuns/CommonsCloud pay the exact same contribution levels as one would do through OpenCollective
- they get their CommonsCloud account activated on https://meet.commonscloud.coop/
- notice the visual identity, where colleague David Gómez has combined the [meet.coop logo] + meet + [CommonsCloud logo: and changed the colours into meet.coop’s green
- when meet.coop logo / identity changes, this art work should be changed as well
- with a welcoming message (now in Catalan) saying: “A videoconferencing service by CommonsCloud.coop where organisational and individual users are cooperative members of femProcomuns.coop which forms part of the international project Meet.coop”
One thing that isn’t clear in this reselling model is how the endusers relate to meet.coop, other than being users. They should also have a say in meet.coop’s governance, if they’d like so, as they are contributing the full membership fee. However, as there’s no formal relationship (yet), they’re not counted as formal members who can cast a vote in any meet.coop decision. Only indirectly can femProcomuns represent them in meet.coop - but that is somewhat different.