Facilitator abandons meeting; allow others to end it

[jordanh]

Issue - Enhancement

See #576 and #578. This is perhaps a bugancement.

Imagine the following scenario:

1. The facilitator started the meeting to kick the tires but never ended it
2. A second user logged in to try and use Action (probably to use the team dashboard) and they see that a meeting is active
3. They join the meeting with the intention of ending it but they can't (without knowing the secret incantation)
4. Most importantly, the user didn't even realize they were not the facilitator - it just look like our software was stuck

Super frustrating!

So, what to do? Brainstorming options (in addition to the above):

1. If a meeting has been active for >24 hours, end it automatically (requiring a server task)
2. Add a button to the team dashboard modal offering to end a meeting if it has been active for > 24 hours
3. Add a button to the meeting sidebar for the same
4. Bug? If the tater is offline, shouldn't the user now become the tater?
5. Other?

• Estimated effort: 2 points (see CONTRIBUTING.md)

[jordanh]

Upon further consideration, I think this is as simple as:

If the tater is offline and I resume a meeting, allow me to become the tater.

I think this is just a re-election edge case.

[ackernaut]

I like the “no tater? auto-elect a person online to be tater”

[mattkrick]

1. Why 24? We write opinionated software, let's add some opinions! If it's over an hour, we should pop a notification. If it's over 90 minutes, we should go Online Banking on their ass & pop a notification saying "this meeting has been running for 90 effing minutes! Click Extend to extend it for another 30", which extends the field timeMeetingShouldEnd. If they don't click Extend in 5 mins, it ends. We don't need to cronjob this, when startMeeting is called, we put a self destruction timeout at the end that ends the meeting if new Date() < timeMeetingShouldEnd.

Alternatively, we make them the facilitator.

• Jordan starts a meeting by himself, then ditches it
• I see a meeting, I join
• After all teamMembers have been loaded (requires a little extra work to do this right, we could just use a simple setTimeout for now), I see if the facilitator is online. if he isn't then i request to become a facilitator. The server then promotes me to facilitator.

Another option

• if i'm the only one present & the meeting is beyond the lobby phase, then I get a note asking if i want to be facilitator.

[jordanh]

I think the simplest way to go here is "alternatively, we make them the facilitator." Question is, shouldn't our facilitator re-election logic already handle this?

[mattkrick]

The current logic checks to see if a facilitator was online & then went offline. So, if the facilitator was never online to begin with, it won't fire. We can change that logic to suit case 2, but there are a few things:

• Folks can still leave meeting unended/unattended.
• It could be problematic for bad connections. For example, Jordan has crappy internet. He subscribes to the team members, then his internet dies. The settimeout runs out, sees that the facilitator isn't online, and sends a request for him to become facilitator. His internet starts working again, and then he gets all the team members & forces his way to the facilitator role.

[jordanh]

How about this logic:

1. A team member joins a meeting by loading a /meeting/* route from a route outside of /meeting/* (i.e. the components will mount)
2. When there is no active facilitator, hold a facilitator election

It still provides an edge case where the original facilitator's connection could be jittery and a later joiner then could usurp facilitation...but perhaps that's not such a bad thing? Perhaps it's also unlikely to occur often?

[mattkrick]

what do you mean election? If we do full-on election-style logic with an arbitrator this gets easy (albeit i think that's overkill)

[jordanh]

I'm not intending to invent anything new. Whatever the method was called that chooses the next facilitator if the previous facilitator drops. Probably a poor choice of words on my part :)

[mattkrick]

i think we're overthinking this.

1. it should be stupid obvious who the facilitator is. If it isn't, then our UX has failed & we need to scrap the current pink circle & do something more blatantly obvious. Maybe a bigger pink ring with the word Facilitator below the icon.

2. if i'm not facilitator & i try to do something, like advance the meeting, i should be told via toast.

3. if i click my face, i should be able to promote myself as facilitator.

Then we avoid these edge cases.

[jordanh]

Ok, so:

• Bigger pink ring around who the facilitator is/text badge under the avatar saying 'Facilitator' (gently moving sparkle?)

• Change advance meeting link to include Facilitator name "{so-and-so}, advance the meeting"

• Add a cron job to end meetings automatically after 24 hours

[mattkrick]

@jordanh what are your thoughts on this? the first one seems reasonable, i just need a mockup from @ackernaut on how it should look with the facilitator badge below.
i think the 2nd one is a noop because we're just gonna remove the link for non facilitators.
do we still wanna add the 3rd one? I can get started on writing that mutation

[jordanh]

Yeah, let's make that cron task.