From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D940E7CB6DC for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:41:17 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=stroeder.com header.i=@stroeder.com header.b=tDiIPspM DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=stroeder.com; s=stroeder-com-20201114; t=1610638875; bh=xa6cwdqOO4qoe2HxzJ8k1zhpMVHUVr1nGCH20ADPBUI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=tDiIPspMnB9IENsZz+PkXExs5r1vLQN5fV8AZWCj+Xo0fYOLssyiHyjNrcJciJywE PS/7oIBLOt/dM8XcParbmAyZfQYGCwxg3C1kxA9RAdKDxoJ/YFquhJkm/BpJURj08/ oXWT9XX5waKbBvaQQ7BF/KHFX1IolwfjgBE5honpkkETexhWg6wBOW1+KYqkAbv1PT 2bpgGBflpSmWkYaTP3LEkvtaniSu7uGLCfWXZNu4WYVhpW6YmRJiWJqSm5u To: galene@lists.galene.org References: <394af17f-0f68-2c37-e9db-043433fd2bb7@stroeder.com> <87r1mnelus.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87mtxbekzy.wl-jch@irif.fr> <871renedzj.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= Message-ID: <7af360d1-0449-a011-0d99-fd2100c03a7e@stroeder.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:41:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871renedzj.wl-jch@irif.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: OAMQRIFADS4FNUXKQ4G4PU6PDFJTUKAP X-Message-ID-Hash: OAMQRIFADS4FNUXKQ4G4PU6PDFJTUKAP X-MailFrom: michael@stroeder.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.2 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: autolock always locks List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 1/14/21 4:26 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>>> Are non-ops automatically kicked out when the last op leaves (or whe= n >>>> the group is locked again with /lock)? >=20 >>> No -- the assumption is that they were present at the meeting, so the= y're >>> authorised to be here. >=20 >> RFE: How about an autokick group option. ;-) >=20 > Opinions from others? Featuritis or useful feature? Just to add some rationale: I'm not so much concerned about GDPR issues because this can mostly be dealt with at orga level. And believe me, I'm concerned about privacy in general. Otherwise I wouldn't spend my spare time running my own video conference server. But compared to privacy issues I'm much more frightened of someone abusing my unattended Gal=C3=A8ne installation for something really bad which does real harm to human beings and triggers police investigation etc. I was even considering time constraints in my reverse proxy or similar to tighten it at least a bit. So IMO an autokick option would not only be featuritis. Ciao, Michael.