Since July 2020 we have been offering the multi-user account option. It is quite different from other member accounts in that the member organisation gets their own Greenlight instance and can add as many hosts as they wish - formally only limited by our Fair Use Policy and the servers breaking down.
For a long time reviewing this modality in our services is in my mind, but recently it was triggered again when one of our user members explained that he had quit paying meetcoop as he already had the service through social.coop
So what do we know & need to know in order to review this specific service modality?
First we can study the membership details and contributions made by user members. Over time, we have onboarded several multi-user members, IIRC 9 in total of which these 7 are still active contributing User Members: Tor Project, Social.coop, European Culture Foundation, CEESC (College of Social Educators), CDR/Digital Resilience Collective, Team Community, Derechos Digitales.
Two key questions come to mind, 1) how manu accounts and how much workload are each of these generating on our servers? 2) should they be paying more (or less) and share revenue with us, like femProcomuns is doing with meet.commonscloud.coop? or differently? This one is especially important in relation with social.coop, which is in some form or another reselling our services to their user base. This specific relationship we should review and adjust - I guess that was the idea from the start, but maybe it has slipped away.
Maybe with the tech.circle we should look into this workload question and the number of accounts, and check which Greenlight multi-user instances are indeed running atm (did we eliminate the FoEI one? and Radical Routes?)
When we know these details we can evaluate and discuss possible adjustments in our multi-user service definition and/or in specific relations with some of the user members.