Do you want to add a whole new section for just this tool or are there more tools in mind if the section is created? I only hesitate with the idea of creating a new section for one tool as it seems like resources are stretched thin just keeping up with all the sections currently available.
It seems like maybe a Wiki on Proton Meet would make more sense for now if there is only going to be one tool to meet the requirments.
Cross platform requirement probably could be lessened. From what I observed:
Private calls, like between family members, are usually mobile device to mobile device. Sometimes desktop-to-mobile, e.g. in case of some big event call.
Desktop-to-mobile from time to time happens in education classes and in therapy sessions. It’s mostly down to whatever device is comfortable for “receiving side”.
Enterprise is desktop-to-desktop. I heard about some management liking mobile devices like iPads but never observed it in real life.
From my experience with enterprise (but not at management level) - it’s always desktop-to-desktop, voice only calls and screen share. No one cares about your face but screen share was obligatory. So, it could be a requirement as well.
It would be nice to have security audited software but I don’t see news about Proton Meet being audited.
Open source requirement could be of a lesser degree - obligatory for client side but optional for server side.
Shouldn’t Mailbox Meet be considered as well? I believe it’s OpenTalk based (open source).
What about reviewing the Jami again? Previously it was rejected due to lack of audit and buggy nature.
As noted this discussion is not about what tools. Surely others can be considered but outside this thread. You are welcome to create a Site Development > Tool Suggestions post.
The point was that requiring mobile devices support may outcast desktop conferencing software.
And there are use cases for non-mobile communication: enterprise use, learning classes, and “IT support”-like (e.g. helping your relatives resolve whatever issue they have by directing them through screenshare from their side).
Tho, requirements can be changed later, upon discussing actual tools to add.
Potential requirement discussion: call recording, and AI transcription tools, pose a threat to privacy. I’d like to enforce a capability to disable both
You would have to argue why that would be important for this section specifically. We don’t require this for any other section. (And you will find many threads on the forum on this not being for normal users). And then specifically on why that makes it more privacy friendly, which I don’t see as the data is end to end encrypted.
it’s not about it being a requirement for privacy, but having to have one person self-host makes a tool less user friendly, as at least one person in a team or social group has to know how to do that and be willing to put the time into maintaining the app.
I’ve had this discussion elsewhere on the forum this week, but it depends on your target audience. The home page of PG suggests its target audience is anyone who wants to get started with digital privacy, as the central banner says ‘start your privacy journey.’
I meant the requirement could be that it doesn’t require self-hosting. It really depends on who you are trying to reach with your recommendations and what the purpose of the Guide is.