What services can we offer from 1st July 2020?

Following yesterdays meeting and the really helpful insight from @hng regarding the experience of ColloCall and how they have technically set service levels I think we are going to need to wipe and re-create Greenlight accounts on both ca.meet.coop and demo.meet.coop in the process of re-configuring the servers to provide commercial services with fair use and privacy policies and so on.

I believe that with a lot of work we might just about be able to pull this off by 1sth July at the earliest and a have created a lists of tasks we need to complete and a draft set of service levels on the wiki, there is a screenshot of my initial version here:

Screenshot_2020-06-19 Service levels - Online Meeting Coop Wiki

Please note that I don’t have strong feelings regarding the number of meeting rooms per account, the meeting duration limits, the limits of the number of people per meeting room or the costs and these don’t have much of a technical implication other than editing some variables, however the other aspects of what the service are can’t realistically be changed if we want to start offering a service by 1st July as this is already a very tight timetable.

Take great care editing the table on the wiki with the WYSIWYG editor as it often removes rows, check that are all present when you open it and if they are not open it again before editing, or better click Edit source !

5 Likes

Thanks Chris, these service levels make a lot of sense to me. As we’ve discussed in the past, I think we should relax limitations on free accounts as much as we can to make it as useful as possible to casual users (e.g. increasing duration & number of participants), since that’s the easiest way we can attract attention to the platform.

2 Likes

Thanks for laying this out @chris!

Just FYI for the rest, there are tasks on the wiki page and I’ve picked up some to do before 1rst of July. Would be great if there outstanding ones were picked up by someone who has some spare time!

2 Likes

I updated the tasks on the wiki page and also changed the draft service levels and prices somewhat, see the screenshot below.

We need to start bringing in some income for this project to pay for the time and server resources is it using, if a few people can volunteer to take on that tasks that don’t have names against them then I think we can have a viable service up and running by 1st July, but this is a very tight timescale and it will need quite a lot of work to pull it off…

Screenshot_2020-06-19 Service levels - Online Meeting Coop Wiki(1)

1 Like

Screen Shot 2020-06-30 at 6.08.38 PM

I have the following use case for some potential clients + imaginary scenarios, and wonder where we see them fit into these service tiers.

  1. Event of 100 people, single room like OPEN 2020. They would pay €200 to set up a Medium account + €100 for the month, then tear down the account? Can they load a list of email addresses to Greenlight to give registration links for access control?

  2. Weekly 6 people meetings, with annual 200 people conference. Medium throughout the year would cost €1,400. They’d rather set up a free account, and pay €300 once.

  3. Language tutor with 20 students, need to set up a room per student (so they don’t go into each other’s rooms accidentally during a class). They would pay for the Large account in order to get > 12 rooms even though all the sessions are 2 people? They are better off creating 20 Free accounts.

  4. I want a custom domain like bbb.deprecated.systems. Both Medium and Large will support this right, since I am an admin of a custom Greenlight instance. I know there is mention of dedicated domain / sub-domain, but it’s unclear whether this mean my domain.

In general, I feel there are too many tiers. Individual and Micro are sort of the same. I can’t see someone needing 3 rooms to not need 6 rooms, or 3 h vs. 6 h. Instead I think it’s useful to make plans with a type of user in mind. For example:

A. The tutor who needs to make as many rooms as they want, but each one limited to 6 participants.

B. For small conferences who cannot afford €300, and want to make a room URL per session before the conference (e.g. Open Publishing Festival), there should be a way where they can make many rooms each with 20 participants and each one only 3 h in duration.

I think the way that the service levels are structured now are reflective of the infrastructure, but don’t reflect real world use cases very well.

It does, you can have meet.hypha.coop and also the email notifications can be set to use a meet@hypha.coop SMTP account, however we haven’t yet got multiple Greenlight containers working… I’m sorry to say that I have got less done in the last 10 or so days than I hoped I would…

I think for most organisations Greenlight containers without limits on numbers of people in meeting room or the length of meetings will make sense, restrictive limits like this only make sense when selling individual accounts rather than containers.

I think I’m with @benhylau here - though I admit that I now have become unclear on what level of management is conducted in a Greenlight container - does it give container admins rights to create room admins, or is it a lower level, where specific rooms can be created, with specific resident hosts? I can no longer remember what kind of rights we conference organisers were given for Open2020, and never was aware at that time how that ‘admin space’ was related to Greenlight ‘container space’. Some kind of Venn diagram of the admin privileges hierarchy would really help, mapped into Greenlight/BBB system architecture, so that we all can see what kinds of constraint there are on how accounts can be administered (as distinct from server/software admin). @osb d’you get this? The ad-hoc administration of user-organisations’ room bundles, by them, is where things should all be focused? Server admin issues should be well in the background, as regards account administration.

Right now, alpha phase, we’re much constrained by what Greenlight capability (and sysadmin familiarity) allows us to administer at the sysadmin level. But the aim should be to move as quickly as is realistic to a use-case based offering of fair-use service bundles (accounts) in the beta phase of meet.coop. And to promise early adopters that this is what we mean to do, in consulation and co-design with them (in collaborative ‘circles’) about room use-cases and organisations’ room-bundle needs, so they stay with us through the painful journey.

I see use cases thus

  • individual person’s ad hoc meeting room - up to seven ppl cameras on for 2 hours - but typically two ppl cameras on for 1 hour, twice a day
  • ’atelier’ workroom for a circle - seven participants coming and going in varying combinations all day - average four ppl cameras on for five hours
  • conference/confluence - 50 participants 6 cameras on over two days plus eight breakouts 50 cameras on total 6 hours
  • town square - 100 ppl coming and going continually every day cameras on average 5ppl staying 20min
  • custom - to be individually negotiated

The nature of this use case typology differs from ben’s, I think. Maybe Ben is seeing owner-entrepreneur/freelance/gig-economy small businesses. I certainly am seeing commons-economy/solidarity-economy/civil-society movement organisations and coops trading under coop principles. No individual or free accounts (maybe when we have a large and reliable surplus!). @wouter what would your use-cases look like?

Account offerings is another matter. I see accounts as offering bundles of these room types in maybe three tiers, under fair-use expectations policed as firmly as is possible, priced accordingly, selling only to organisations:

  • single-circle organisation = ‘simple organisation’ rate - single-person accounts/rates not to be offered. Free accounts not to be routinely offered (but cases of hardship considered)
  • multi-circle organisation = “complex organisation” rate
  • federated network (eg a Hispanic or Japanese language-based network, a bioregional trade and civil society network, a university - an example might be Coop University in the UK) dedicated service rate . ‘Own-server’ badged reselling of bandwidth (as in Collocall?) is not a service to be offered. Only networks under meet.coop governance to be eligible for accounts

I can possibly help with tech support via BBB room…

In Upcoming Conference and Events we are discussing a way to support Event use, which is characterized by:

  • high touch (lots of planning work, trial runs, management of accounts and recordings)
  • high resource (up to 200 participants)
  • durational (usually 1-5 days)

However, most events also have regular meetings throughout the year that fits into one of our existing levels. Perhaps we can add a row, where each paid tier gets durational access to our “event server” for a fee.

For example, Individual accounts can hold 1 event per year. Micro 2 and Small 4 events. Medium unlimited. Every event involves extra fees, but something pretty affordable and depends on the amount of labour needed to set up.

1 Like