That is certainly true, but it is still worthy to consider as a core feature.
@Anton_Akhmerov has pointed it out correctly. The essencial missing moderator feature for Jitsi is to prohibit attendees to speak, or to allow attendees to speak. Local mute settings should be completely independent from this so this should create now issues with privacy.
Another issue of cause is the point that you loose moderator rights if you have network problems and are kicked out from the conference…
A screenshot from Zoom. This is all I’m looking for.
For example this feature cannot work in the context of meet.jit.si. But will work in case of only one moderator (but then when moderator reload what will happen?) or secure rooms when someone is self hosting. There is no such feature in our roadmap, so any contributions are welcome.
Hello, I’m currently browsing in search of a suitable Web Conferencing system that could be implemented for general meetings of companies.
I discovered Jitsi today and my first experiment using https://meet.jit.si/ really impressed me. Although, one of the first functionality that seems essential for this use case is the possibility of moderating a meeting, as is for other use cases cited earlier in this discussion.
IMHO a suitable tool for such a purpose would be to have some kind of “layer”, intervening between the connected participants and the “live feed”, that would only be accessible by the moderator(s) and that would act as some kind of “mixing table”.
A moderated session would start with all participants listed, but having their video and audio disconnected from the “live feed”, except the one(s) of the moderator(s).
The “mixing table” could consist of three lists:
List 1 - Raised Hands:
Displays the names (icons) of all participants. When someone raises hand, this name is brought to the top of the list, under other names that have already raised their hand before. The top of this list is thus organized in the order in which the hands were raised (a timer since it was raised would be nice to have).
This list would be visible by all participants and could be used to initiate private chats, but only moderators could move names from this list to list 2.
List 2 - Main Stage:
Displays the names of participants currently connected to the session’s “live feed”. Here also a timer since each one has been connected would be nice to have.
The moderator(s) could move any name from list 2 back to list 1 which would then disconnect this user’s video/audio feed form the live feed.
List 3 - Public Chat Requests:
Displays a list of pending public chat messages from the audience. Public chat messages issued by the participants would stack up in this list until they are validated or discarded by the moderator(s).
And that would be it!
Of course easier said than done, and to be honest, as I haven’t even deployed Jitsi myself yet, I have absolutely no idea whether this would be complicated or even possible to implement. Nevertheless, I just wanted to share the idea.
I will continue my research in the hope of finding a platform offering the required functionality. But I would also like to invite anyone who might have the required skills to implement something close to the functionalities described here above in Jitsi to contact me as the company I work for might be interested in funding such a development.
The pricing and timing would of course need to be discussed and agreed upon but in case someone reading this feels like going for it, we might start a discussion…
Thank you, and congratulations to the Jitsy team for sharing this already very nice piece of software with the community.
I have just signed in and want to create a group confernece.
But I hav a problem: I can’t open my camera, my microphone, my oudio output and configuration does not even let me. What do you think is the problem.
I have no problem with other videochats on that issue.
Jitsi work for us now, we are a small community with a grown up manner, in more wild meetings like schools i think this functions is perfekt.
I love to se this functions talked about .
I agree that if a user mute, there should be no way to unmute that user!
But a moderated silence function besides that would be nice! One way maybe that only users that have raised hands can speak.
@Tonyno If you are on Windows 10, check the privacy settings and allow apps to use microphones and camera. Also check the browser address bar (usually a lock symbol) to allow camera and mic in that browser.
@damencho I used by accident the “unstable” version and noticed the “mute all” button for the moderator, this is an awesome feature, and teachers told us, they would love to have such button in their real classroom
Is there by any chance a secret option to make the moderator video always visible?
We use the lastN=3 Option, but we rather use lastN=2, and have the moderator video always visible.
In light of this, it’s even more important to have a better alternative
This may be a privacy concern in SOME situations. I am trying to use Jitsi as a virtual classroom with children due to the Covid-19 shutdown. I don’t WANT the kids to be able to un-mute themselves AT ALL. It’s hard enough to control chatter in an actual classroom environment, let alone when kids are in their living rooms. Being able to selectively un-mute children who have their hands raised, or even without hands raised is almost a necessity in this type of situation.
To tell the truth, being on video-chat, by definition, is broadcasting audio and video. We are not remotely accessing their machines and activating their cameras/microphones. They are voluntarily entering into a video conference. If somebody has something they need privacy for, they can easily just leave the chat and return to it once their private moment is over. The idea of muting in conferences is so that a noisy mic can be muted so the person who is supposed to be speaking isn’t drowned out by somebody else, not so that a person can have a private moment while they are broadcasting everything in the room to the entire group. Denying a moderator a feature of being able to selectively mute or unmute, especially if it is on a private server because some person might not understand that by engaging in a video conference means you are broadcasting and need to log out before you say something private is absolutely absurd.
Look, we take privacy very seriously and you are right, this is your use case, but there are a lot more use cases. I feel your pain, not sure what can be done. But if you want, join our community call (next one is this Monday) and express your thoughts and we can discuss it live there. As decisions as this are not taken from me, there are Product managers with more use cases in mind and can give advices or can think what can be done.
While I’d love to have a “supermute” where I can mute someone independently from whether they have their mic muted or unmuted, your request is not as simple as you make it.
What if one of your classroom kids wants to be able to listen to your lesson, while dad is talking to his boss on the phone. His dad wouldn’t want you to unmute his microphone and neither you or the kid wants to leave the virtual classroom while he is talking. If you force him to leave for that, he’d miss something he’s supposed to learn.
If somebody is in a studio apartment or a hotel room, I can see the this point being a valid one. In a house or a unit with a bedroom, not so much. Our parents are kept well aware of the technologies being used as well of the schedules of our video conferencing. The father (or mother, for that matter), can step out of the room to have his or her private conversation with his or her boss OR the child who only wants to listen/watch can watch the YouTube livestream rather log into the chat server if the teacher decides this is ok.
I’m not wanting the teachers to randomly unmute students, either. The flow I’m looking for is for the teacher to mute all of the students. The students should be told not unmute themselves (while I would PREFER a super-mute, that’s not really necessary), but to raise their hands. When the teacher wants to allow the student to ask the question, the teacher un-mutes the student and asks what the student wants to know. I know the teacher COULD tell the student to un-mute, which would work well for the middle school, but not quite so well with a kindergartner or first-grader.
I really like jitsi and would prefer to use it over BigBlueButton. The interface is a lot simpler and friendly. It really is a beautiful product. Installation of BBB is a pain in the rump, in comparison. For a classroom environment, dealing with young children, the lack of the ability to un-mute a child makes the other a more viable solution.
I guess that this is the pathway for anyone who wants to see if they can persuade the project to take it on!
Just a stupid idea that i didnt try but :
if in interafce.js you remove micro && video for default index.html
and add a custom.html + custom-interface.js for moderator , i mean, a custom interface entry with a secret name,
may moderator teacher can open the room with full interface , and guest with micro/video muted and no button to turn it on ?
- student goes normal adress room
- teacher open room in adress/secretentry.html
Just a stupid idea… sry if it was …
Note: unmute power cannot be a solution. Too powerfull. the only solution is that moderator do not unmute, but transmit to all what was already unmuted. I mean, guest has unmuted , but moderator forbid or accept the relay to other in the room. such a moderator function giveTheOnlyOneMicrophoneTo()
I would like to second the need for a bit more control. We are looking into using jitsi to stream lectures to 100s of students during the lockdown, minimizing interruptions. As was mentioned before, the university is interested in using their own IT resources for GDPR reasons, instead of falling back to an external provider like YouTube.
As was mentioned above, our minimum viable feature set would also be: The host gets control
- … whether participants may unmute themselves
- and may impose a ``master-mute’’ the prevents participants from unmuting themselves
That would basically fulfill all our requirements, both for streaming lectures as well as for on-line conferences.
In any case, many thanks for developing such a marvelous tool with Jitsi that allows us to avoid panicking when looking at the seemingly daily Zoom headlines!
Add me in to the request for moderators to be able to mute/unmute selectivelly
As everybody here, nobody wants that feature to SUPRESS people’s right to stay muted.
It’d be as easy as:
- User has a moderator_muted bit, default false (not muted)
- User has a muted bit, default false (the current one)
In case somebody mutes themselves, they will stay muted no matter what. Moderator’s mute is just to force them to stay muted EVEN if they have set themselves unmuted. That mute could even be applicable to video.
So if I, moderator, unmute somebody, in order to hear them, they’d need to be unmuted on their side too.
That covers all and any privacy concerns. You have the PRIVILEGE to talk and the RIGHT to not be heard.
@damencho I missed the last one this week but I will definitely jump on the next one on the 13th, thanks so much!
Interested in implementing this ‘super moderator muting / give the floor to’ feature as well and happy to contribute our developer time towards getting it done as well.