What services can we offer from 1st July 2020?

[hng]

I am also not available from 15:00 to 16:00 CEST but before and after.

[benhylau]

Does this work for y’all?

• #product-strategy-and-services Circle
  • 11:30 - 12:30 CEST @hng @wouter @osb @chris @benhylau
  • Agenda: service levels & reseller model
• #organizational-operations Circle
  • 12:30 - 13:30 CEST @benhylau @mikemh @wouter @aaronhirtenstein
  • Agenda: membership amendments & decision making

Of course others are welcome to join, I am just listing the ppl I see who has been in these discussions.

[hng]

works for me

[osb]

will try - may have to juggle / stay muted if baby can not be distracted with toys!

[freescholar]

@benhylau

200€

Agaric is using an outsourced BBB for 250-300 people on a dedicated server. Things are going well, but we are hoping to move to meet.coop services ASAP.

[freescholar]

I am using WordPress as a front-end for BBB and am able to make unlimited rooms… so far. I have no GreenLight knowledge. http://communityBridge.com

[benhylau]

Time confirmed, same room.

[Yasuaki]

I am looking forward to joining Marketing and Strategy meeting today - I want to promote meet.coop for worker coops in Japan

[chris]

@benhylau

@chris maybe you can fill this table so we know what that looks like before the Tues meeting?

That pad doesn’t support the colspan table cell attribute so I created a draft MediaWiki prices page, I can go into some detail about some of the thinking behind this suggestion at the meeting in an hour.

[benhylau]

The #product-strategy-and-services circle agreed on our service level offerings, @wouter will refine the doc to be presented and hopefully adopted this Thursday.

Meeting notes here.

[petter]

oh I missed the new time… anyway, would be happy to join the product strategy circle from now on @benhylau !

[benhylau]

We definitely should set regular times asap. Hopefully we can do that this Thursday, for each Circle.

[wouter]

@benhylau

The #product-strategy-and-services circle agreed on our service level offerings, @wouter will refine the doc to be presented and hopefully adopted this Thursday.

Meeting notes here.

I have tried to apply the details we discussed during yesterdays’ Product & Services Circle about the service levels back into the Service Level page.
issues:

• Do we want to talk about “Contribution levels” instead of Service Levels?
• What about the names for the service/contribution levels? Given that we have been changing names per tier between wiki and forum, we can appreciate there not being consensus on that yet Another possibility would be to change the naming convention altogether. In the second row in the table I’ve pot another option, where “meet10” refers to the level that allows 10 participants and “meet50” max 50 participants. Of course these service level definition will change over time and possibly also their names. In any case, what names make us happy?!
• domain names per service:
• • for the core standard services (up to 50 participants) will we use meet.coop or members.meet.coop or otherwise?
• • for the custom container (up to 100 participants) will we use a personalised subdomain of meet.coop like "entity-name".meet.coop or would we also allow domain names of user members? Here I think there are two perspectives: a) anything a user member wants is fine, coordinating DNS changes takes some remote support, but we’re happy to make anyone happy; b) we keep things simple, use only meet.coop subdomains and have a key identifier (the URL) to signal who’s providing the service - that’s great for viral marketing. Any preferences?
• • The completely custom service can allow anything also custom domain names.

Please correct anything that I’ve missed.

[mikemh]

Great stuff @wouter

will we use meet.coop or members.meet.coop

I vote meet.coop

"entity-name".meet.coop or would we also allow domain names of user members?

I vote entity-name.meet.coop
. . only meet.coop subdomains, signal who’s providing the service - we hope to cultivate a community of commons-co-operative-oriented usage, under a common ‘banner’ ?

completely custom service

I would still be happy to see meet.coop here too, for the above reason. It’s still our infrastructure and our service. Even if it’s ‘their’ infrastructure (ie if they directly rent the server) it’s our operational labour and our collective configured capability that constitute the service.

meet10 / meet50 etc

looks good to me

Do we want to talk about “Contribution levels” instead of Service Levels?

I would say ‘contribution’ refers to what comes into the coop - labour, or money (funding) - and what we provide to users is ‘service’. I think we should offer service levels, expect and require fair-use observance of these, and invite funding contributions of X-plus € (with a possibility of “crowdfunding top-up”?) at fair-use level X. Emphasising the level of fair use (aka service) is important I think?

[chris]

@wouter

we keep things simple, use only meet.coop subdomains and have a key identifier (the URL) to signal who’s providing the service - that’s great for viral marketing.

@mikemh

I vote entity-name.meet.coop

We can only create sub-domains of meet.coop for external entities that are co-operatives and then only with agreement, see the third-level domain policy, for Greenlight containers best use a sub-domain provided by the client.

[mikemh]

best use a sub-domain provided by the client

Might we also have a non-coop domain that we could freely create subdomains in? Eg omc. Keeping our service visible in the url would be good, I think.

[benhylau]

Thanks for pulling this together, looking good!

@wouter

“Contribution levels” instead of Service Levels

+1

@wouter

names for the service/contribution levels

I don’t like the “Individual/Micro/Small/Organization/Large” and prefer the new names, but tying them to participant limit may be weird as that’s a number that could change in the future.

Since we are using the terms Members and Contribution Levels, why don’t we name the tiers like this in two rows, or is it too confusing?

Columns
Contribution	Free	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Organization	Custom
Membership	None	Individual membership	Individual membership	Individual membership	Organizational membership	Organizational membership

I wonder when an individual contributes at the Organization/Custom level, are they considered an Organizational User Member, especially in relation to votes, etc. when that gets spec’d out. If not, then using the word “Organization” here at all will make things confusing.

My suggested footnotes

¹ Membership offers the right to participate as a User Member at the Online Meeting Cooperative, and is part of all Contribution Levels except for Free accounts.
² Recorded rooms will be enabled on the shared cluster in the coming months, when per-room recording can be controlled through the Greenlight interface.
³ Members may use our Event Server with dedicated resources for a time duration at additional cost in the coming months.
⁴ A Fair Use Policy applies, where members commit themselves to contribute according to the agreed contribution levels and seek to live together as friendly commoners on the shared platforms.
⁵ BigBlueButton recommends that no single session exceed 100 users.
⁶ Amounts are exclusive of applicable sales tax.

[wouter]

@chris

We can only create sub-domains of meet.coop for external entities that are co-operatives and then only with agreement, see the third-level domain policy, for Greenlight containers best use a sub-domain provided by the client.

Thanks, Chris for reminding the dotCoop subdomain policy. I looked through it and one of the requirements is "Users must be members of the second level registrant organization; "

Isn’t this the key thing? The service is ours, to our members. There’s nothing no-cooperative about it that would exclude us. I mean the fact that we would offer xx.meet.coop to a subgroup of members is still a meet.coop service, we’re in no way renting out subdomains or something like it.

If the doubt remains, maybe it would be good to check with dotCoop about it?

[wouter]

@benhylau

I don’t like the “Individual/Micro/Small/Organization/Large” and prefer the new names, but tying them to participant limit may be weird as that’s a number that could change in the future.

yeap, that’s true, the #participants can change, and possibly we come up with meet150 or whatever when that’d be suitable.

Since we are using the terms Members and Contribution Levels , why don’t we name the tiers like this in two rows, or is it too confusing?

Columns
Contribution	Free	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Organization	Custom
Membership	None	Individual membership	Individual membership	Individual membership	Organizational membership	Organizational membership

the concept looks very good to me, only I’m not sure the individual / Organisational distinction here: that will depend on the legal form of a given member: if one joins a person, or as an organisation.
And besides, why would an organisation not be able to go for Level 2 or 3?

I wonder when an individual contributes at the Organization/Custom level, are they considered an
Organizational User Member, especially in relation to votes, etc. when that gets spec’d out. If not, then using the word “Organization” here at all will make things confusing.

for the above reason I agree that “Organisation” here is confusing; I’d rather see another Service / Contribution level. What would you prefer?

My suggested footnotes

1 Membership offers the right to participate as a User Member at the Online Meeting Cooperative, and is part of all Contribution Levels except for Free accounts.
2 Recorded rooms will be enabled on the shared cluster in the coming months, when per-room recording can be controlled through the Greenlight interface.
3 Members may use our Event Server with dedicated resources for a time duration at additional cost in the coming months.
4 A Fair Use Policy applies, where members commit themselves to contribute according to the agreed contribution levels and seek to live together as friendly commoners on the shared platforms.
5 BigBlueButton recommends that no single session exceed 100 users.
6 Amounts are exclusive of applicable sales tax.

Yes, please apply these improvements in the wiki, @benhylau

[wouter]

@mikemh

Do we want to talk about “Contribution levels” instead of Service Levels?

I would say ‘contribution’ refers to what comes into the coop - labour, or money (funding) - and what we provide to users is ‘service’. I think we should offer service levels , expect and require fair-use observance of these, and invite funding contributions of X-plus € (with a possibility of “crowdfunding top-up”?) at fair-use level X. Emphasising the level of fair use (aka service) is important I think?

Maybe you’re right, we offer the service level. At the same time members choose a contribution level that comes with a certain service level. Haha, that’s not making it clearer