0:0:0.0 --> 0:0:2.730
Keith Low
Through the licensing and we agree on certain points.
0:0:2.980 --> 0:0:20.660
Keith Low
I think the main points that time was the exploration able to check on that able to send out notification internally as well as external external into the tenant admin internally is to the account manager and there will be a great experience.
0:0:21.920 --> 0:0:29.490
Keith Low
So the great spirit is, but what amendable should be able to modify it?
0:0:29.500 --> 0:0:34.680
Keith Low
But then for MVP, probably we will do it in a fix fix period for example like 2 weeks.
0:0:35.740 --> 0:0:44.30
Keith Low
And we also mentioned about the license type, I think, Josh, I'm sure.
0:0:44.40 --> 0:0:46.630
Keith Low
Thanks for from you E the new license type.
0:0:46.640 --> 0:0:55.70
Keith Low
I think you you guys change so I need the new license type and as well as the description so that that was what we discussed previously.
0:0:55.280 --> 0:1:3.470
Keith Low
And I think we agreed after internal discussion that we were actually to all the requirement and as per what we discussed.
0:1:6.630 --> 0:1:9.330
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, I think maybe to summarize that.
0:1:9.790 --> 0:1:18.700
Chris DiPierro
Uh, last week spoke there was a question about expiration expiration is absolutely a feature of licensing service.
0:1:18.710 --> 0:1:22.800
Chris DiPierro
We had a conversation internally around that that's that's not a not a problem.
0:1:33.800 --> 0:1:33.940
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:1:23.430 --> 0:1:34.120
Chris DiPierro
That will include grace periods as as part of it, as he said, the licensing types and think more generally we will support whatever license types we need, I think, yeah.
0:1:34.130 --> 0:1:39.440
Chris DiPierro
If we need descriptions and that's fine, but but ultimately we're not imposing limitations to it.
0:1:39.510 --> 0:1:42.550
Chris DiPierro
Josh outlined a couple of different types that weren't in the initial bundle.
0:1:42.810 --> 0:1:47.850
Chris DiPierro
I think last time we spoke and that's fine, but that not not a problem for for from that perspective.
0:1:48.300 --> 0:2:5.10
Chris DiPierro
So I think at the end of the day, you know we're providing ARC with what you are kind of asked for it, right, you know and number of license types assigned to different people across instances with expirations and notifications surrounding them.
0:2:5.20 --> 0:2:5.710
Chris DiPierro
I think that's fine.
0:2:5.930 --> 0:2:8.270
Chris DiPierro
How we get information like the account manager?
0:2:8.280 --> 0:2:9.300
Chris DiPierro
I don't really know exactly.
0:2:9.310 --> 0:2:9.820
Chris DiPierro
That's the thing.
0:2:9.830 --> 0:2:15.120
Chris DiPierro
We still gotta sort through, but that for purposes of notifications, but, well, we'll work through that so.
0:2:16.850 --> 0:2:18.80
Keith Low
Yeah, and ring.
0:2:17.320 --> 0:2:21.10
Stephanie Jones
That we will have the expiration date in there when it expires.
0:2:21.150 --> 0:2:22.100
Chris DiPierro
Umm yes.
0:2:21.940 --> 0:2:22.250
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:2:22.260 --> 0:2:22.530
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:2:22.580 --> 0:2:25.780
Keith Low
We we will have that How at the moment.
0:2:25.790 --> 0:2:42.10
Keith Low
I mean, honestly, we the present three services that actually involved in in these services are I mean provisioning, licensing and IHOME we don't have this feature yet, but I will be working with Duraid to have to have him to review the design.
0:2:42.240 --> 0:2:44.530
Keith Low
So this will be included in.
0:2:47.590 --> 0:2:52.680
Keith Low
I I think 1 might think uh, there are just a little bit of things that I just need to double confirm.
0:2:53.30 --> 0:3:3.730
Keith Low
So for example, during the grace period we previously we did, we discussed there could be a two weeks or whatever date that actually is set by your side.
0:3:5.370 --> 0:3:7.480
Keith Low
After that we start to block uh.
0:3:7.870 --> 0:3:12.560
Keith Low
The signing of a new license, but then during the grace period start.
0:3:13.150 --> 0:3:16.520
Keith Low
What would I?
0:3:16.610 --> 0:3:17.840
Keith Low
What is the expectation?
0:3:18.110 --> 0:3:24.720
Keith Low
So for example, like the license expires today, the user will have two weeks continue using.
0:3:26.50 --> 0:3:31.790
Keith Low
So I think the the idea was, uh, we will already start blocking assigning assignment of new licenses.
0:3:34.320 --> 0:3:37.370
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, this came up in our internal conversation. Once you're.
0:3:38.40 --> 0:3:43.210
Chris DiPierro
Excuse me if a user happens to, well, an instance happens to end up in a grace period.
0:3:43.220 --> 0:3:45.710
Chris DiPierro
Should we restrict any functionality right?
0:3:46.180 --> 0:3:55.20
Chris DiPierro
One thing you could do from restricted functionality is stop allowing assignment of new users to potentially available licenses, right?
0:3:55.80 --> 0:4:2.460
Chris DiPierro
So this is in the hypothetical use case where an organization, let's just say, has 100 licenses.
0:4:2.470 --> 0:4:4.230
Chris DiPierro
They've assigned like 92 of them.
0:4:5.120 --> 0:4:8.510
Chris DiPierro
Their past experience, but still within the grace period.
0:4:8.520 --> 0:4:24.960
Chris DiPierro
Can they assign a 93rd license at that point or are we kind of imposing a restriction that says, hey, look, we're letting you use the product during a grace period but not letting you do additional, you know, provisioning of users during that time period, anybody kind of have a thought or preference down that path?
0:4:25.920 --> 0:4:26.670
Stephanie Jones
That makes sense.
0:4:27.750 --> 0:4:32.880
Stephanie Jones
That makes sense to stay or like how we're liking use this.
0:4:32.890 --> 0:4:34.860
Stephanie Jones
You're you have your past.
0:4:34.870 --> 0:4:36.350
Stephanie Jones
The expiration date.
0:4:37.70 --> 0:4:37.320
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:4:36.360 --> 0:4:38.640
Stephanie Jones
We're letting you use it, but yeah, you can't add new people.
0:4:40.70 --> 0:4:40.240
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:4:38.650 --> 0:4:42.820
Stephanie Jones
I mean, if we're, if we're able to institute that that I think we should.
0:4:43.720 --> 0:4:44.760
Chris DiPierro
OK, that's fine.
0:4:43.830 --> 0:4:44.990
Keith Low
Umm, OK, great.
0:4:46.130 --> 0:4:46.550
Keith Low
OK, I.
0:4:46.10 --> 0:4:47.210
Stephanie Jones
Is that 2 weeks?
0:4:47.220 --> 0:4:49.660
Stephanie Jones
Was that where did that two weeks come from?
0:4:50.720 --> 0:4:54.30
Keith Low
You was just a suggestion where in in our previous discussion.
0:4:51.520 --> 0:4:54.50
Stephanie Jones
Is that just? Yeah.
0:4:56.410 --> 0:5:0.0
Stephanie Jones
I mean, I didn't know if that was like an industry thing or if that was OK.
0:5:3.580 --> 0:5:3.760
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:5:4.560 --> 0:5:4.870
Stephanie Jones
Umm.
0:4:54.210 --> 0:5:7.130
Chris DiPierro
It in in this in this spec like now in the spec we talked about it just being configurable but probably should should come up with some sort of reasonable default but.
0:5:7.880 --> 0:5:10.300
Stephanie Jones
Great. OK.
0:5:9.810 --> 0:5:18.280
Chris DiPierro
I when I've done this in the past, I've done month long grace periods is kind of like the default just cause it takes companies a while to get there actually there unless with you.
0:5:18.60 --> 0:5:20.300
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, get paid and everything.
0:5:18.330 --> 0:5:20.550
Chris DiPierro
But I've also seen, but I've also seen right?
0:5:20.800 --> 0:5:22.830
Chris DiPierro
But I've also seen week long, so I don't know.
0:5:22.840 --> 0:5:25.820
Chris DiPierro
You know, I think figure out something that is reasonable.
0:5:25.830 --> 0:5:26.750
Chris DiPierro
And why would to be modified?
0:5:26.760 --> 0:5:28.210
Chris DiPierro
It doesn't really matter that much so.
0:5:28.650 --> 0:5:29.250
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:5:29.840 --> 0:5:31.910
Stephanie Jones
OK, that makes sense.
0:5:30.670 --> 0:5:36.770
Keith Low
I mean, touching on this the ideally we would make it a configurable that that is the direction we are going.
0:5:37.50 --> 0:5:37.320
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:5:37.160 --> 0:5:45.880
Keith Low
But assuming let's say for MVP, if I want to simplify this and let's say fix it first, so 30 day work for you.
0:5:47.140 --> 0:5:50.190
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, I would if we're, if we did something MVP, I would do 30 days.
0:5:50.200 --> 0:5:52.750
Chris DiPierro
I rather be more permissive than less permissive.
0:5:56.320 --> 0:6:3.10
Keith Low
OK, I think the other question that I have is, uh on license reduction.
0:6:3.300 --> 0:6:9.560
Keith Low
So this have this scenario happens when assuming you have pen but the renewal is for five.
0:6:9.880 --> 0:6:18.980
Keith Low
So I I think we we discussed and we agreed we will not be able to deprovision for them because we don't know which user to deprovision.
0:6:19.330 --> 0:6:25.110
Keith Low
So what happened is we will set up notification to the account manager to the tenant admin.
0:6:26.30 --> 0:6:29.470
Keith Low
Uh, but we will not enforce any deprovision.
0:6:29.780 --> 0:6:36.570
Keith Low
So I think the scenario would worst case scenario would probably be the tenant admin.
0:6:36.580 --> 0:6:37.40
Keith Low
Ignore it.
0:6:38.450 --> 0:6:39.300
Keith Low
So what do we do?
0:6:39.310 --> 0:6:40.200
Keith Low
What do we do about it?
0:6:40.210 --> 0:6:47.770
Keith Low
I think the the one way is we have to send this to the hydrogen somebody in hydrogen that actually managed this account.
0:6:48.420 --> 0:6:53.580
Keith Low
Uh, there is one way because there's no way for us to actually deprovision the user.
0:6:54.240 --> 0:6:54.400
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:6:53.750 --> 0:6:55.220
Keith Low
So I think the best we can come is this.
0:6:57.180 --> 0:7:0.870
Chris DiPierro
And I I think there's a point where automation will always break down, right?
0:7:0.880 --> 0:7:2.470
Chris DiPierro
Like this is kind of a weird scenario, right?
0:7:2.480 --> 0:7:6.520
Chris DiPierro
Like I've I've got 10 users and now I'm only renewing for five.
0:7:6.530 --> 0:7:8.810
Chris DiPierro
Hopefully the account manager understands the reasoning.
0:7:8.820 --> 0:7:22.520
Chris DiPierro
Kind of to start with because like ideally we're trying to convince them to not down sell, but if it just kind of randomly happens I guess then yeah, I think this is the edge of automatable processes.
0:7:22.530 --> 0:7:22.780
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:7:22.790 --> 0:7:26.390
Chris DiPierro
You just say the new license has, in this case 5.
0:7:26.600 --> 0:7:29.50
Chris DiPierro
They're clearly not able to assign any new licenses.
0:7:29.60 --> 0:7:30.250
Chris DiPierro
We can't be provisioned.
0:7:30.260 --> 0:7:32.460
Chris DiPierro
As you said, you don't know who to take them away from.
0:7:32.470 --> 0:7:43.470
Chris DiPierro
But yeah, if we could do some sort of periodic notification to the relevant people, I mean, if the account manager just chooses to ignore that, like I don't know if we can do a whole whole lot about it at that point, right. So.
0:7:45.560 --> 0:7:45.940
Stephanie Jones
Right.
0:7:46.790 --> 0:7:47.960
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, I agree.
0:7:48.10 --> 0:7:48.220
Stephanie Jones
And then?
0:7:50.780 --> 0:7:52.620
Stephanie Jones
I mean, if they right? Mm-hmm.
0:7:54.640 --> 0:7:59.920
Stephanie Jones
So if they were new for five, then they're paying for five, they're getting 10.
0:8:6.340 --> 0:8:6.520
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:7:59.930 --> 0:8:7.560
Stephanie Jones
I mean is I wonder is there would I understand what you're saying like you can't pick which five of the 10 are like out.
0:8:20.860 --> 0:8:21.90
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:8:7.570 --> 0:8:25.130
Stephanie Jones
So that makes sense, but I wonder if there's something from a renewals perspective that we could until they you know, until they reduce the numbers, then we're charging them for the 10, but that's the, but what you're saying is this is not a platform services thing, it's that's more of a rest of idea Gen thing because.
0:8:27.220 --> 0:8:27.500
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:8:26.440 --> 0:8:36.70
Chris DiPierro
I think it's a platform services from a perspective of if if I was the designing notification around that Keith and I guess we kind of are, I would like send a notification about that daily.
0:8:36.870 --> 0:8:37.70
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:8:36.210 --> 0:8:39.670
Chris DiPierro
Honestly, if you're and, it's not really just that renewal time.
0:8:43.710 --> 0:8:43.880
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:8:39.680 --> 0:8:53.400
Chris DiPierro
It's like if you, if we ever find it in ourselves, in a situation where somehow there are more users provisioned with a given license type than they have available licenses, then we should be kind of, say screaming about it.
0:8:53.410 --> 0:8:57.20
Chris DiPierro
But you know, I telling people about it very frequently.
0:8:56.920 --> 0:8:57.100
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:8:57.30 --> 0:8:59.140
Chris DiPierro
Essentially, he was what it comes down to.
0:8:59.290 --> 0:8:59.800
Stephanie Jones
I agree.
0:9:2.690 --> 0:9:2.890
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:9:2.110 --> 0:9:4.140
Keith Low
Yeah, OK. Yeah.
0:9:2.0 --> 0:9:10.110
Chris DiPierro
Renewal seemed the most obvious, but if somehow some other way, something breaks where somehow somebody is able to provision an extra license, it would be good to know that too, right?
0:9:10.190 --> 0:9:12.540
Chris DiPierro
Just really the same notification from that perspective.
0:9:15.90 --> 0:9:20.140
Keith Low
OK, I think uh, this more or less sums up what we discussed previously.
0:9:20.150 --> 0:9:35.600
Keith Low
And I think it also clarifies the, I think due to my email, really sorry about that, this this clears up, OK outside of this discussion is something that crops up for provisioning of user as well as the renewal.
0:9:35.650 --> 0:9:43.720
Keith Low
So I think this is something we discussed, but not in priority, something which we would like to do in the longer term, which is like a provisioning UI renewal UI.
0:9:43.930 --> 0:9:50.910
Keith Low
So my question is, at the moment I understand Paul Martin is the one that is responsible to provision your user.
0:9:51.280 --> 0:9:57.880
Keith Low
Am I right to say that if Alicia Keys and Paul Martin? Yes.
0:9:56.760 --> 0:9:58.610
Vincent Oon
Yes, yes, that that will be cut offs.
0:9:58.780 --> 0:10:1.210
Vincent Oon
Paul Paul basically caught up.
0:10:1.280 --> 0:10:5.60
Vincent Oon
When will be the one that helped to create the initial tenant?
0:10:5.560 --> 0:10:6.730
Vincent Oon
The initial user?
0:10:6.780 --> 0:10:7.70
Vincent Oon
Yeah.
0:10:5.740 --> 0:10:7.500
Keith Low
OK. Hmm.
0:10:7.80 --> 0:10:7.790
Vincent Oon
Initial user.
0:10:7.860 --> 0:10:10.540
Vincent Oon
They are the one create because we don't have the UI yet.
0:10:7.550 --> 0:10:11.280
Keith Low
Gonna share it, but umm.
0:10:11.860 --> 0:10:12.90
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:14.460
Keith Low
But he was telling me that this is a temporary measure.
0:10:14.580 --> 0:10:14.760
Vincent Oon
Yeah.
0:10:14.550 --> 0:10:17.540
Keith Low
My question is who will do it after then?
0:10:19.450 --> 0:10:19.610
Keith Low
No.
0:10:18.540 --> 0:10:21.260
Vincent Oon
No one, uh, I I don't.
0:10:29.830 --> 0:10:30.0
Keith Low
And.
0:10:21.320 --> 0:10:36.900
Vincent Oon
I don't think the temporary that the temporary actually means that until we got the permanent process in our software means that there's a UI implemented, but it shouldn't be handled to anyone else to to do it, yeah.
0:10:36.840 --> 0:10:37.120
Chris DiPierro
So.
0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:39.570
Keith Low
OK, but even even with the US, somebody needs to do it.
0:10:39.580 --> 0:10:40.440
Keith Low
It's not automatic.
0:10:41.330 --> 0:10:41.570
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:10:41.80 --> 0:10:50.750
Keith Low
I mean I need to clarify this, assuming we come to a point where we have provisioning UI, somebody needs to provision and meet with the UI is actually simpler.
0:10:50.830 --> 0:10:51.450
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:10:51.590 --> 0:10:53.140
Chris DiPierro
So, so, so.
0:10:53.210 --> 0:10:57.600
Chris DiPierro
So I think this has a broader implication than just our here.
0:10:57.610 --> 0:10:59.840
Chris DiPierro
Here a couple conversations I had around this recently, right?
0:10:59.850 --> 0:11:2.260
Chris DiPierro
So I talked to Muna and I talked to Chris Walsh.
0:11:2.270 --> 0:11:2.620
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:11:2.630 --> 0:11:7.360
Chris DiPierro
And today, as you said, there's no there's no UI right.
0:11:7.530 --> 0:11:15.650
Chris DiPierro
And Chris Walsh's view on the world is therefore it's cloud office responsibility because they're the ones who know how to run postman to hit APIs essentially, right?
0:11:15.660 --> 0:11:18.980
Chris DiPierro
Like they just happen to have that technical skill, right?
0:11:18.990 --> 0:11:21.490
Chris DiPierro
Paul Martin or whoever can can clearly do that.
0:11:22.500 --> 0:11:33.650
Chris DiPierro
Umm, I think Chris's view of the world is that once a UI exists or any other automation that he would like to get cloud OPS out of that world, that might be a little bit different than what Paul.
0:11:33.660 --> 0:11:36.730
Chris DiPierro
I watched the video of what you and Paul had conversations with.
0:11:36.740 --> 0:11:46.420
Chris DiPierro
I'm not sure if Paul necessarily shared that we were not, but I think at least the expectation would be that it's not like a deep level cloud OPS agent doing it.
0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:49.820
Keith Low
Hmm.
0:11:46.430 --> 0:12:0.380
Chris DiPierro
It might be something maybe like a level one person in the, you know, cloud Center of Excellence or whatever in India or something like that, but it might also not be it kind of sounded like, you know Chris view of the world is like yes, we have to do this right now because we're the only ones who are capable of doing it.
0:12:2.160 --> 0:12:2.850
Chris DiPierro
Flip side of that.
0:12:2.860 --> 0:12:14.910
Chris DiPierro
When I was talking to Muna, I asked there his view he's like, well, isn't cloud OPS involved at provisioning it specifically is asking about renewal, but his isn't cloud OPS available or responsible at provisioning?
0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:18.810
Chris DiPierro
Therefore, why would we bring anybody else into the world at renewal time?
0:12:18.820 --> 0:12:20.140
Chris DiPierro
It should always just be cloud OPS.
0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:27.310
Chris DiPierro
I feel like there needs to be some conversations at a higher level of this going forward.
0:12:36.570 --> 0:12:36.690
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:12:27.320 --> 0:12:38.590
Chris DiPierro
I think the answer right now is yeah, Paul Martin or whoever is the one doing it, we'll build a UI because even for cloud OPS, they could use in the UI to make things a bit easier in Paul's conversation with you.
0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:44.230
Chris DiPierro
I think the key take away from that was the biggest thing that UI brings is consistency.
0:12:44.440 --> 0:12:44.600
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:12:44.240 --> 0:12:49.880
Chris DiPierro
If you build a UI and do whatever validation it is you need on the UI and then you hit the.
0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:51.850
Chris DiPierro
Excuse me, the API is on the back end of that.
0:12:52.330 --> 0:12:55.700
Chris DiPierro
That is obviously more consistent than somebody running a bunch of postman commands.
0:12:55.710 --> 0:12:56.180
Chris DiPierro
Clearly.
0:12:56.270 --> 0:12:57.700
Chris DiPierro
So I think it doesn't really.
0:12:57.710 --> 0:13:0.900
Chris DiPierro
I think all this is, I don't think it matters right now, right.
0:13:1.260 --> 0:13:1.400
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:13:0.950 --> 0:13:8.780
Chris DiPierro
I think the expectation is cloud OPS will do it for the foreseeable future, but at some point they might look to hand it off to somebody else.
0:13:8.790 --> 0:13:9.880
Chris DiPierro
But either which way?
0:13:9.890 --> 0:13:12.840
Chris DiPierro
We'd wanna build a UI for consistency on top of it so.
0:13:13.870 --> 0:13:14.570
Keith Low
OK, OK.
0:13:14.280 --> 0:13:14.720
Vincent Oon
Yes, yes.
0:13:16.350 --> 0:13:22.900
Keith Low
I think we when we come to that point, then we can decide I think right now just we can just focus on building the UI.
0:13:23.410 --> 0:13:24.20
Keith Low
I think OK.
0:13:24.30 --> 0:13:26.20
Keith Low
My next question is for you, Josh.
0:13:26.750 --> 0:13:32.380
Keith Low
Unofficially, I heard from some colleague I know the new license name, Andrew description, but can you confirm?
0:13:32.590 --> 0:13:35.150
Keith Low
I think right now is called Risk Pro and risk.
0:13:35.750 --> 0:13:40.740
Keith Low
I can't remember the name and then you have an enterprise user instead of business user.
0:13:42.230 --> 0:13:43.630
Joshua Haseldine
Uh, two seconds.
0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:48.671
Joshua Haseldine
Let me go, Stephanie i.e.
0:13:49.420 --> 0:13:52.610
Joshua Haseldine
Sorry I can't spreadsheet and I can't even saved it.
0:13:53.540 --> 0:13:54.750
Joshua Haseldine
I'm sure it was enterprise.
0:13:54.760 --> 0:13:56.180
Joshua Haseldine
Yes. Uh.
0:14:0.490 --> 0:14:0.900
Joshua Haseldine
OHS.
0:14:1.10 --> 0:14:1.560
Joshua Haseldine
That's five.
0:14:1.570 --> 0:14:2.240
Joshua Haseldine
There's pros.
0:14:2.250 --> 0:14:5.380
Joshua Haseldine
The stunt there's on both audit and risk.
0:14:5.390 --> 0:14:7.750
Joshua Haseldine
And then there's a fifth one, which is called.
0:14:9.10 --> 0:14:10.20
Keith Low
I think it's enterprise.
0:14:9.60 --> 0:14:10.190
Joshua Haseldine
I think it's called that Prabha.
0:14:10.690 --> 0:14:11.610
Keith Low
Yeah, I think it's enterprise.
0:14:10.880 --> 0:14:11.680
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, two sacks.
0:14:11.920 --> 0:14:13.530
Joshua Haseldine
Sorry, I'm literally getting spreadsheet up now.
0:14:13.540 --> 0:14:14.450
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, it's enterprise, yeah.
0:14:15.740 --> 0:14:16.40
Keith Low
OK.
0:14:15.430 --> 0:14:16.700
Chris DiPierro
Is enterprise a thing you're not?
0:14:20.70 --> 0:14:20.550
Stephanie Jones
Here's.
0:14:16.710 --> 0:14:21.630
Chris DiPierro
I thought like saw a whole like conversation changed definitely that like whether enterprise should be a thing.
0:14:27.270 --> 0:14:27.480
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:14:22.860 --> 0:14:34.910
Stephanie Jones
The word enterprise people have a problem with umm, so I and that's still being nailed down, if you will, because enterprise.
0:14:35.930 --> 0:14:38.280
Stephanie Jones
Well, what was sent?
0:14:38.290 --> 0:14:44.380
Stephanie Jones
That was just it's just a bigger thing than only having risk only having audit.
0:14:44.390 --> 0:14:45.70
Stephanie Jones
You're having both.
0:14:45.810 --> 0:14:45.940
Chris DiPierro
And.
0:14:45.80 --> 0:14:49.510
Stephanie Jones
You're having more of that consolidated look.
0:14:49.770 --> 0:14:52.80
Stephanie Jones
So we always use the word enterprise.
0:14:52.90 --> 0:15:19.100
Stephanie Jones
Well then, umm, sales and marketing were like well, enterprise means it's for a big company, it's for an enterprise level of company and I'm and that was never the intention, it was the we used the word enterprise to just mean you have like the whole suite of things not that you're Best Buy and now you need something bigger because you're bigger than the local credit union using it.
0:15:19.190 --> 0:15:23.270
Stephanie Jones
So I don't know what that word is going to end up being.
0:15:23.320 --> 0:15:29.150
Stephanie Jones
I think right now we're just saying audit and risk or risk management and internal audit, whatever.
0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:38.850
Stephanie Jones
You know the full names of it and just saying and instead of having one word, but there still is the need for a combined unified consolidated.
0:15:39.100 --> 0:15:40.860
Stephanie Jones
You have both platforms.
0:15:42.970 --> 0:15:47.210
Stephanie Jones
So enterprise itself is not going away, but the word enterprise might be going away.
0:15:48.450 --> 0:15:51.260
Chris DiPierro
OK, so there's a license step that corresponds to you.
0:15:52.460 --> 0:15:52.720
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah.
0:15:53.580 --> 0:15:53.880
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:15:51.270 --> 0:15:54.90
Chris DiPierro
Something like enterprise basically is really concerned.
0:15:54.100 --> 0:15:55.770
Chris DiPierro
We got less of what ends up being called, sure.
0:15:56.70 --> 0:15:57.690
Stephanie Jones
And I guess maybe just call it.
0:15:58.180 --> 0:15:58.930
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:15:58.980 --> 0:16:3.670
Stephanie Jones
I'm IDEAGEN internal audit and risk management and just say both names of them.
0:16:2.400 --> 0:16:5.760
Chris DiPierro
We caught up, caught Optimate ARC ultimate.
0:16:5.770 --> 0:16:6.390
Chris DiPierro
You get everything.
0:16:8.310 --> 0:16:10.280
Keith Low
And the feature for this would be uh.
0:16:12.800 --> 0:16:13.80
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:16:13.800 --> 0:16:14.260
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, yeah.
0:16:10.290 --> 0:16:14.310
Keith Low
They include both risk and audit, and unlimited user. Umm.
0:16:13.930 --> 0:16:14.500
Chris DiPierro
We don't.
0:16:15.890 --> 0:16:17.0
Chris DiPierro
Well, hang on.
0:16:17.190 --> 0:16:18.520
Chris DiPierro
I can say we don't care, but what?
0:16:18.530 --> 0:16:19.360
Chris DiPierro
What's that then?
0:16:19.370 --> 0:16:20.80
Chris DiPierro
Limited users.
0:16:20.90 --> 0:16:22.40
Chris DiPierro
Part of things.
0:16:22.30 --> 0:16:24.170
Stephanie Jones
OK, then that's something separate.
0:16:24.180 --> 0:16:25.440
Stephanie Jones
That's the business user.
0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:27.480
Keith Low
Our business user that is still business user.
0:16:27.880 --> 0:16:28.40
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:16:29.690 --> 0:16:29.890
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:16:29.730 --> 0:16:30.670
Keith Low
Oh, OK, OK.
0:16:30.780 --> 0:16:30.920
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:16:31.790 --> 0:16:32.190
Stephanie Jones
Stop.
0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:33.480
Chris DiPierro
And.
0:16:30.680 --> 0:16:38.470
Keith Low
So that mean right now we will have a six different type of variety because initially I bought a basic Pro basic pro for each.
0:16:38.480 --> 0:16:39.100
Keith Low
There will be 4.
0:16:42.90 --> 0:16:42.730
Chris DiPierro
No, no, no, no.
0:16:39.110 --> 0:16:43.930
Keith Low
Then there's one enterprise, which is the business user, but then business user means everything enterprise.
0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:44.0
Stephanie Jones
There is.
0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:45.570
Keith Low
Is a separate.
0:16:45.230 --> 0:16:46.880
Stephanie Jones
There's six.
0:16:47.970 --> 0:16:48.280
Keith Low
OK.
0:16:47.550 --> 0:16:49.650
Stephanie Jones
There would be 6, right because you have.
0:16:47.560 --> 0:16:51.860
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, business users, actually a business user is actually a pretty low permission to user.
0:16:53.970 --> 0:16:54.270
Stephanie Jones
Correct.
0:16:51.870 --> 0:16:56.160
Chris DiPierro
From my understand, the enterprise or whatever it gets called is pretty high permission.
0:16:56.170 --> 0:16:58.700
Chris DiPierro
There's a pretty much opposites of each other. Umm.
0:17:5.180 --> 0:17:5.450
Stephanie Jones
Correct.
0:16:59.260 --> 0:17:15.610
Chris DiPierro
And and yeah, business user, I think we said is kind of unlimited from a user, it's usage perspective, but just for for Stephanie and Josh and Vincent's benefit, when we started talking about this at an actual licensing level, I still like the, I don't like the idea of having a flag that says that this is unlimited.
0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:21.450
Chris DiPierro
So I think the way we would mainly because it creates a whole weird logic checks if you start doing that sort of thing.
0:17:21.450 --> 0:17:23.150
Stephanie Jones
But like 1000 or something in there.
0:17:24.50 --> 0:17:24.170
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:17:26.180 --> 0:17:26.340
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:17:21.460 --> 0:17:27.230
Chris DiPierro
So I still think the way we exactly, I think the way we really do it is like 10,000 or something ridiculous basically.
0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:28.220
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:17:27.240 --> 0:17:34.320
Chris DiPierro
So it their view of the world would still say, hey, you know, you got 10,000 of these you provisioned, I don't know, 100 or whatever.
0:17:34.330 --> 0:17:37.300
Chris DiPierro
I've seen this by the way, in like Office 365 licensing.
0:17:37.310 --> 0:17:42.360
Chris DiPierro
Anytime they give out something that's quote unquote free, it's like 9999 licenses.
0:17:42.370 --> 0:17:45.140
Chris DiPierro
And I don't think that's gonna cause us a problem.
0:17:45.120 --> 0:17:45.290
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:17:45.150 --> 0:17:45.650
Chris DiPierro
Really. So.
0:17:46.320 --> 0:17:47.350
Keith Low
OK, I think no issue.
0:17:47.80 --> 0:17:47.380
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:17:47.420 --> 0:17:53.140
Keith Low
I think just to highlight this, because we are working with the UX team, uh.
0:17:53.150 --> 0:17:56.720
Keith Low
I'm also giving you the TPO, we need to put this into the service.
0:17:56.830 --> 0:18:3.640
Keith Low
So I think once it this is confirmed, I think Josh, maybe you can actually email me then I'll let them know and they can actually put it in.
0:18:3.910 --> 0:18:7.140
Keith Low
Because right now it's a things are here from TPO.
0:18:7.150 --> 0:18:9.440
Keith Low
I hear from all these are not confirmed.
0:18:8.680 --> 0:18:10.300
Chris DiPierro
I still get a little concerned about this one.
0:18:10.310 --> 0:18:14.210
Chris DiPierro
The Keith like, I mean at the end ultimately license types might change frequently, right?
0:18:14.300 --> 0:18:14.550
Keith Low
Umm.
0:18:14.220 --> 0:18:21.470
Chris DiPierro
Like they like audit and risk could decide to create like a 3 new license types tomorrow when they release version two or something like that.
0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:21.710
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:18:20.850 --> 0:18:21.790
Stephanie Jones
They've been Oxley.
0:18:21.800 --> 0:18:23.300
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, you have something.
0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:24.250
Chris DiPierro
Like if they if they if they got new features.
0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:28.710
Chris DiPierro
So however, it is that we're doing it, we need this to be pretty flexible, right?
0:18:48.680 --> 0:18:48.930
Keith Low
Umm.
0:18:28.720 --> 0:18:49.580
Chris DiPierro
It can't really be my preference would be anyway that it's not like married to a version of the licensing service, but instead reads this data a bit more dynamically and that so that you know if there is an update on on audit and risk side that we can kind of be pretty responsive to that basically.
0:18:49.590 --> 0:18:51.570
Chris DiPierro
So, you know, let's design that.
0:18:52.60 --> 0:18:53.420
Keith Low
OK. Yeah.
0:18:51.580 --> 0:18:54.380
Chris DiPierro
However, it is that we need to design it, but like I don't.
0:18:54.390 --> 0:19:0.240
Chris DiPierro
I ideally it's not hard coding all the licenses in their license types within like the licensing service, and they're saying, well, great.
0:19:0.250 --> 0:19:2.780
Chris DiPierro
It's three months for us to put a new license to service out the door, right? So.
0:19:7.150 --> 0:19:7.310
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:19:2.970 --> 0:19:10.800
Keith Low
Umm yeah, I think we could do it in in such a way that it could be an idea Gen admin that like, yeah, yeah.
0:19:8.550 --> 0:19:10.820
Chris DiPierro
Because remember, we don't really care much about it, right?
0:19:10.830 --> 0:19:15.780
Chris DiPierro
Like the from from from a purely platform point of view, it's a license name and description we don't.
0:19:20.190 --> 0:19:20.370
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:19:15.850 --> 0:19:27.800
Chris DiPierro
There's no implication to us about what that does, right, like so the amount of the amount of care we have to have around it is really just delivering the content of that in the appropriate spots, right? So.
0:19:27.630 --> 0:19:28.90
Keith Low
Umm.
0:19:28.310 --> 0:19:29.110
Keith Low
Yep, Yep. Movie.
0:19:31.150 --> 0:19:31.630
Keith Low
Uh.
0:19:31.710 --> 0:19:34.380
Stephanie Jones
OK, that's what I'm confused by.
0:19:34.390 --> 0:19:37.280
Stephanie Jones
OK, so we have so the the.
0:19:38.850 --> 0:19:39.160
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:19:39.170 --> 0:19:43.960
Stephanie Jones
So for risk, we have standard or sorry essentials and professional.
0:19:44.10 --> 0:19:45.440
Stephanie Jones
Those are the official names.
0:19:46.190 --> 0:19:54.260
Stephanie Jones
Umm, now we haven't really delivered enough risk functionality to to to to sell.
0:19:53.940 --> 0:19:55.700
Chris DiPierro
Have been essentials and professional, yeah.
0:19:54.270 --> 0:19:57.640
Stephanie Jones
You know, as essentials and professional.
0:19:57.650 --> 0:20:13.430
Stephanie Jones
So right now, I guess they're, I guess the default like we're gonna give everyone essentials and then and then once they you know once we start to add the functionality then then we'll be able to have that distinction same for the audit side essentials and professional.
0:20:13.480 --> 0:20:14.520
Stephanie Jones
So there's four.
0:20:15.150 --> 0:20:18.400
Stephanie Jones
We talked about business users that that's five.
0:20:18.610 --> 0:20:35.740
Stephanie Jones
So that enterprise level or or, you know consolidated level, is that just you have is a separate license type required for that or well because every user has to have one license type right, they can't have more than one license type, is that right?
0:20:35.150 --> 0:20:35.840
Chris DiPierro
No, they're gonna.
0:20:35.850 --> 0:20:37.380
Chris DiPierro
No, they they can have more than one.
0:20:37.390 --> 0:20:38.140
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, absolutely.
0:20:38.150 --> 0:20:38.870
Chris DiPierro
They can have more than one.
0:20:39.950 --> 0:20:43.50
Stephanie Jones
So do we give them a consolidated interval?
0:20:43.60 --> 0:20:44.160
Stephanie Jones
I'll just keep calling enterprise.
0:20:44.500 --> 0:20:44.690
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:20:44.170 --> 0:20:52.850
Stephanie Jones
Do we give them an enterprise license type or do we give them both professional of risk and professional audit and say those two make up the fact that you're an enterprise customer?
0:20:53.670 --> 0:20:59.140
Chris DiPierro
I think this is more of a you question than ask question and the reason I say that is because what does enterprise mean in the future?
0:20:59.880 --> 0:21:5.400
Chris DiPierro
Let let let's say you introduce as you said, like a Sox license or something like that.
0:21:5.410 --> 0:21:9.240
Chris DiPierro
Or, you know, whatever else would enterprise encompass all of that?
0:21:9.290 --> 0:21:14.720
Chris DiPierro
Or would enterprise only mean risk pro and audit pro at that point, right.
0:21:14.790 --> 0:21:22.240
Chris DiPierro
If enterprise is gonna perpetually mean, I have literally everything we ever released, then I think I would do it as a single license type.
0:21:23.360 --> 0:21:23.480
Joshua Haseldine
Hey.
0:21:21.530 --> 0:21:24.0
Stephanie Jones
Then this needs to be at home OK.
0:21:22.590 --> 0:21:29.500
Chris DiPierro
If means I these two, but not this other one, then I would not have it as a license type.
0:21:29.510 --> 0:21:35.760
Chris DiPierro
Then I would just say, yeah, no, we should just go onesies, you know, on on everything that they they need so.
0:21:37.390 --> 0:21:47.340
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, just to back of workers is saying that it it's, it needs to be its own user because if we're giving probes by border and risk, we don't want them to give full system admin regardless.
0:21:50.880 --> 0:21:51.160
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:21:47.350 --> 0:21:53.40
Joshua Haseldine
So it needs to be its own individual entity which that enterprise license would sort of.
0:21:55.230 --> 0:21:55.480
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:21:53.250 --> 0:21:55.640
Joshua Haseldine
It would fall under that, umm.
0:21:56.400 --> 0:21:56.570
Stephanie Jones
That's.
0:21:59.230 --> 0:21:59.490
Keith Low
OK.
0:21:59.980 --> 0:22:0.260
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:22:0.270 --> 0:22:0.720
Stephanie Jones
That's helpful.
0:22:3.220 --> 0:22:5.250
Keith Low
Umm, I don't have anymore question.
0:22:5.260 --> 0:22:7.180
Keith Low
I think anything that you would like to bring up.
0:22:8.80 --> 0:22:9.80
Chris DiPierro
I'd like to talk about.
0:22:8.100 --> 0:22:9.670
Joshua Haseldine
Can I hijack this?
0:22:9.900 --> 0:22:10.160
Keith Low
I'm sorry.
0:22:9.920 --> 0:22:11.230
Joshua Haseldine
Meeting uh, sorry, I got Chris.
0:22:11.280 --> 0:22:11.860
Joshua Haseldine
No, I.
0:22:9.990 --> 0:22:12.920
Chris DiPierro
Oh, sorry, I I wanted to hijack you for anything else.
0:22:12.930 --> 0:22:14.20
Chris DiPierro
If Kotte, but you can go first.
0:22:14.750 --> 0:22:16.260
Joshua Haseldine
Well, the thing I'm gonna talk about.
0:22:24.270 --> 0:22:24.420
Chris DiPierro
And.
0:22:24.190 --> 0:22:24.440
Keith Low
Umm.
0:22:16.270 --> 0:22:26.740
Joshua Haseldine
I I've AI might pro came along the pigeon to and it's about the audit trail and I I'm not.
0:22:41.870 --> 0:22:42.120
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:22:26.750 --> 0:22:44.990
Joshua Haseldine
I'm not sure if anyone's sort of aware of an email that's gone around this morning or last night, and from I just it was between development teams, between Enigma and the platform, but that was one of the issues that we've raised a few times.
0:22:45.240 --> 0:22:49.410
Joshua Haseldine
I'm I'm basically there's five issues I have.
0:22:50.390 --> 0:23:7.570
Joshua Haseldine
Uh, that we've sort of stumbled across when we were when we built the audit trail that need to be addressed really before we can release this internally because they are, they're holding us up in terms of like an audit trail format.
0:23:7.630 --> 0:23:10.10
Joshua Haseldine
And so I have a list of five issues here.
0:23:10.260 --> 0:23:16.980
Joshua Haseldine
I can either go through the five issues now or I can send him an email to both for yourself, Chris and yourself.
0:23:16.990 --> 0:23:18.310
Joshua Haseldine
Keith, I'm.
0:23:18.570 --> 0:23:29.20
Joshua Haseldine
But yeah, I think they might need a bit of a bump up over the list or, you know, just at least some form of address in I'm most.
0:23:28.90 --> 0:23:31.110
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, I'm not sure, but either rest are gonna be able to answer your issues.
0:23:32.860 --> 0:23:34.120
Joshua Haseldine
Well, yeah, no.
0:23:39.140 --> 0:23:40.920
Keith Low
Yeah. Hmm.
0:23:31.120 --> 0:23:43.220
Chris DiPierro
If you went through them here and necessarily I did see an A note from JK that he said change log issue which would be audit trail that owed in the Heimdall, we're looking into it need to identify root cause and decide on how to fix it.
0:23:45.800 --> 0:23:46.0
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:23:43.230 --> 0:23:46.930
Chris DiPierro
But that's as much as I've got on it at the moment. So.
0:23:47.770 --> 0:23:48.130
Joshua Haseldine
OK.
0:23:47.180 --> 0:23:49.570
Keith Low
Yeah, I think that's not before 6.
0:23:49.580 --> 0:23:51.270
Keith Low
I also spoke to the TP U.
0:23:51.540 --> 0:24:1.970
Keith Low
He he was telling me someone in Honda is actually looking at it and I think they contacted some some Dev in in Arc team and got some information to test it out so.
0:24:1.720 --> 0:24:2.830
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, but it doesn't.
0:24:2.840 --> 0:24:11.210
Joshua Haseldine
It the response given is basically asking us to change the audit trail log to something that we don't want to do.
0:24:19.660 --> 0:24:19.850
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:24:12.580 --> 0:24:20.790
Joshua Haseldine
It's it's basically asking us to change to a a link and unlink service instead of an updated format which we're trying to move into cause that's how art needs to be.
0:24:21.680 --> 0:24:25.170
Joshua Haseldine
So like I said, I'll forward this, I'll forward all these questions over to you too.
0:24:28.680 --> 0:24:28.840
Chris DiPierro
Sure.
0:24:25.580 --> 0:24:41.570
Joshua Haseldine
But the big two highlights and two ones I really wanna just gal there are the write update which I think is being fixed and it's being released as like in this upcoming fix like mid May I think is when it's due.
0:24:44.170 --> 0:24:44.450
Chris DiPierro
Uh.
0:24:43.470 --> 0:24:44.950
Joshua Haseldine
Am I correct?
0:24:44.960 --> 0:24:47.60
Joshua Haseldine
It basically doesn't allow you to put a null value in.
0:24:48.60 --> 0:24:48.220
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:24:47.940 --> 0:24:49.750
Joshua Haseldine
I don't know if if that means anything.
0:24:49.0 --> 0:24:50.230
Chris DiPierro
Uh, sorry, I don't.
0:24:50.240 --> 0:24:52.280
Chris DiPierro
I don't know the features at that level of detail.
0:24:53.470 --> 0:24:54.420
Joshua Haseldine
No, that's fine.
0:24:52.290 --> 0:24:54.920
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, but but I can look into it so.
0:24:54.600 --> 0:24:57.160
Joshua Haseldine
That's fine and and the second thing is the reperforming.
0:25:0.570 --> 0:25:0.780
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:24:57.170 --> 0:25:0.980
Joshua Haseldine
Once that is huge to us, really.
0:25:2.860 --> 0:25:7.750
Joshua Haseldine
Basically yeah, the the performance of when we have like just like a records say 100 plus.
0:25:11.540 --> 0:25:11.780
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:25:7.760 --> 0:25:17.330
Joshua Haseldine
It just goes to a crawl and it's taking 20 seconds a page and I can't get the green light on an audit trail for performance where it's taking 20 seconds of page.
0:25:17.860 --> 0:25:19.250
Joshua Haseldine
So the read performance?
0:25:19.500 --> 0:25:21.160
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, realistically need to be addressed.
0:25:26.230 --> 0:25:26.400
Chris DiPierro
Yep.
0:25:21.200 --> 0:25:29.190
Joshua Haseldine
However, let me send you this list, and if you can get back to me as soon as because, but you get like said, I can't do 1.21 Toe.
0:25:29.260 --> 0:25:30.680
Joshua Haseldine
This has been alerted.
0:25:30.570 --> 0:25:30.870
Keith Low
Umm.
0:25:31.960 --> 0:25:32.730
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, that's fine.
0:25:33.20 --> 0:25:33.650
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, send it.
0:25:33.660 --> 0:25:35.930
Chris DiPierro
Send it over and Keith, can you?
0:25:38.170 --> 0:25:38.350
Keith Low
Yeah.
0:25:40.710 --> 0:25:40.970
Keith Low
Sure.
0:25:36.240 --> 0:25:41.640
Chris DiPierro
You know, get clarity on on all all all of Joshua stuff with the teams, so.
0:25:42.130 --> 0:25:44.800
Joshua Haseldine
So I'm yeah, brilliant.
0:25:44.810 --> 0:25:45.290
Joshua Haseldine
Thank you.
0:25:45.360 --> 0:25:46.60
Joshua Haseldine
Go on, Chris.
0:25:46.70 --> 0:25:47.50
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, I'll let you hijack it now.
0:25:46.750 --> 0:25:48.330
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, sure.
0:25:49.140 --> 0:25:55.960
Chris DiPierro
So back during Genesis, a question can't was raised from the support team that was along the lines of how do we support this?
0:25:56.210 --> 0:25:57.50
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:25:57.190 --> 0:26:12.110
Chris DiPierro
And that kind of led to the question of specifically, uh, are there the note is there the notion of like, user grants right, like can Support kinda act as a user within an instance to go see things and support and stuff like that?
0:26:12.220 --> 0:26:18.770
Chris DiPierro
I don't know exactly how Support has handled pentana in the past, but I'm gonna guess that that's kind of what is influencing some of these questions, right?
0:26:18.780 --> 0:26:20.240
Chris DiPierro
Like what do we do?
0:26:20.750 --> 0:26:25.600
Chris DiPierro
Umm, the implication for platform was more around the identity side, right?
0:26:32.390 --> 0:26:32.670
Stephanie Jones
Right.
0:26:25.610 --> 0:26:32.880
Chris DiPierro
Like so, are we baking in like some sort of support admin user that people can use and you know, what do we go about doing with that kind of stuff?
0:26:32.920 --> 0:26:36.60
Chris DiPierro
But this, but this felt bigger than just arc.
0:26:36.150 --> 0:26:37.320
Chris DiPierro
So I said, you know what?
0:26:37.700 --> 0:26:37.980
Stephanie Jones
Umm.
0:26:37.330 --> 0:26:38.300
Chris DiPierro
I'm gonna go talk to Muna.
0:26:38.350 --> 0:26:38.820
Chris DiPierro
Let's go.
0:26:38.830 --> 0:26:41.660
Chris DiPierro
Let's go talk about how Support wants to do this in general, right?
0:26:41.670 --> 0:26:45.880
Chris DiPierro
Like in as we have new products, we offer them to platform.
0:26:46.210 --> 0:26:46.960
Chris DiPierro
What?
0:26:47.130 --> 0:27:6.500
Chris DiPierro
How should support approach these sort of things and you know dealing with tenant instances and stuff like that and I can reflect his view and then you can tell me why this is probably more purist than I'm gonna guess our support wants to hear but, but let's just talk about it from a high level.
0:27:7.970 --> 0:27:13.830
Chris DiPierro
Muniz View is Support should never be able to interact in a production environment.
0:27:13.880 --> 0:27:14.330
Chris DiPierro
Ever.
0:27:14.430 --> 0:27:14.830
Chris DiPierro
Period.
0:27:14.880 --> 0:27:17.50
Chris DiPierro
Not not in no way. Right.
0:27:17.60 --> 0:27:46.80
Chris DiPierro
No grants ever to a production environment in a QA or, you know, state or whatever environment what his ideal solution is, is that there can be a Support admin user that is essentially always locked out at something, but the tenant admin can provide, can essentially unlock out that account for a given time period based on a request.
0:27:46.90 --> 0:27:50.80
Chris DiPierro
So in other words, Support says I wanna access your staging environment.
0:27:50.340 --> 0:27:54.970
Chris DiPierro
Let's just say Joshua customer Josh, I want to access your stating environment to help you with this support ticket.
0:27:55.600 --> 0:28:2.690
Chris DiPierro
You go into an advent somewhere and you say, great, Chris, I'm granting you access to the staging environment for the next 24 hours or whatever it is.
0:28:2.980 --> 0:28:9.930
Chris DiPierro
And then Support uses a common account there to log into that staging environment and do whatever it is that they might need to do.
0:28:10.200 --> 0:28:21.540
Chris DiPierro
However, and this was a big one, he was very clear that even in the context of that staging environment or whatever, that the support team should never be able to see any of your data, they should only be able to see metadata.
0:28:21.550 --> 0:28:42.740
Chris DiPierro
They can't see like actual audit records or whatever it might be, and whatever product that we're talking about, they could see things like workflows and configurations and whatever, but he doesn't want them to actually be able to see any data that you recorded in in there that bit, uh, sounds more like a requirement on ARC than it does on platform.
0:28:42.750 --> 0:28:43.60
Chris DiPierro
Right.
0:28:43.70 --> 0:28:50.380
Chris DiPierro
Let's just imagine that platform could provide this notion of unlocking an account for a certain amount of time or whatever for support to use.
0:28:50.530 --> 0:29:21.990
Chris DiPierro
Presumably that user would have some sort of permission associated with it that then arc would need to enforce, not showing any actual records to basically once they once they logged in at that point I kind of asked the question of doesn't support sometimes like actually need to really see data to be able to answer a question and his response to that was if it really comes down to that then that should all be done with screen shares with the customer after ensuring an NDA is in place and all that kind of stuff.
0:29:22.0 --> 0:29:26.550
Chris DiPierro
But it should never be a thing that supports able to do unmonitored essentially so.
0:29:26.780 --> 0:29:45.200
Chris DiPierro
So I don't know how that compares with the current Support process within like our products, if that's maybe it's maybe you already doing all that but but sounds sounded very good from a compliance perspective, but also a bit restrictive in what Support might be able to to do this solve problems.
0:29:45.210 --> 0:29:51.960
Chris DiPierro
So just kind of curious how that that messes with what you guys are expecting, OK.
0:29:48.850 --> 0:30:2.410
Vincent Oon
I can I can answer that because it's just done the internal audit with the support team, the level 1 support, the level 2 support in KL and also we spoke with the support in UK or so.
0:30:2.480 --> 0:30:12.970
Vincent Oon
So basically they do have access to the customer data environment in the current current practice and they do share the single admin account through LastPass.
0:30:13.180 --> 0:30:14.820
Vincent Oon
So that's how they do it.
0:30:16.370 --> 0:30:16.580
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:30:14.880 --> 0:30:25.810
Vincent Oon
Do it so I don't understand why there's a concern now for for the new product that doesn't allow them to see the actual customer data because that's how the other product doing also.
0:30:25.740 --> 0:30:26.110
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:30:26.120 --> 0:30:30.890
Chris DiPierro
And and and and just to be clear, it's not so much that it's a concern for the new products, right?
0:30:30.950 --> 0:30:32.190
Chris DiPierro
Moon is kind of new in the company.
0:30:32.200 --> 0:30:37.110
Chris DiPierro
He's saying this is how I think Support should should run and he has a Salesforce background right?
0:30:37.120 --> 0:30:37.940
Chris DiPierro
It comes from Salesforce.
0:30:37.950 --> 0:30:38.910
Chris DiPierro
This is kind of how they did it.
0:30:38.920 --> 0:30:51.560
Chris DiPierro
Salesforce from one end stand, I think his big emphasis was on maturity as a company, basically in part because different geographies have different regulations for this kind of stuff, right?
0:30:51.640 --> 0:30:52.90
Chris DiPierro
Then what?
0:30:52.100 --> 0:30:58.470
Chris DiPierro
He is kind of trying to outline is like what is the what would cover us in the most situations. Right.
0:30:58.560 --> 0:31:9.670
Chris DiPierro
You know what is the EU allow versus the US versus UK versus whatever and like the most restrictive thing that you can do clearly is to not ever let a third party have access to any records, right?
0:31:10.100 --> 0:31:14.110
Chris DiPierro
So I don't think it's like, why is this a concern when we previously done this.
0:31:14.120 --> 0:31:24.890
Chris DiPierro
I think this is more like this is a standard that he's looking to set and the reason why I think it's applicable mostly to like a new product you guys is because we don't really have a standard set, right?
0:31:25.50 --> 0:31:31.580
Chris DiPierro
Just because we did something in pentana or whatever in the past doesn't mean we necessarily wanna do the same thing in the brand new platform.
0:31:32.880 --> 0:31:33.200
Stephanie Jones
Right.
0:31:31.670 --> 0:31:34.460
Chris DiPierro
I ideally I and and and and and.
0:31:34.470 --> 0:31:36.640
Chris DiPierro
You know, again, this is a very idealistic view.
0:31:36.710 --> 0:31:44.960
Chris DiPierro
Ideally, if we start with the standard, it's easier to continue it than it is to start below the standard and then try to raise ourselves up to it in the future, right?
0:31:44.970 --> 0:31:53.900
Chris DiPierro
If Support gets used to have an access to like production environment and that's how they're solving all the problems, and then you tell them well, now you can't do that anymore and that's going to be very disruptive.
0:31:53.910 --> 0:32:1.990
Chris DiPierro
But if you start it out that way and then you could hopefully create processes around that going forward.
0:32:2.0 --> 0:32:9.540
Chris DiPierro
So and don't get me wrong, I understand the the the idealistic versus practical here a little bit.
0:32:9.550 --> 0:32:16.920
Chris DiPierro
I understand that what I've described as is very much in the idealistic side of of the world, but it is very clean hands right?
0:32:16.930 --> 0:32:19.900
Chris DiPierro
Like if any auditor came to us any you know?
0:32:20.810 --> 0:32:29.670
Chris DiPierro
Uh anybody was looking at us from a standards perspective and we could truly say that, yeah, Support and never sees product and never sees your data at all and never has access to your production instance.
0:32:32.790 --> 0:32:32.890
Vincent Oon
Yes.
0:32:29.680 --> 0:32:37.280
Chris DiPierro
That's a really great message, 100% right, whether we could actually do that and solve people's problems.
0:32:37.290 --> 0:32:37.760
Chris DiPierro
I don't know.
0:32:37.770 --> 0:32:46.570
Chris DiPierro
That's where it's not quite my side of the world, but like, I just kind of wanted to report back on, like, kind of what I got from him.
0:32:46.610 --> 0:33:3.950
Chris DiPierro
I think from an identity perspective, from a platform perspective, I think the notion of being able to grab a special kind of user, if you will support user access for a certain period of time based on a request absolutely seems like a thing that we should be able to support going forward on our identity side of things.
0:33:4.700 --> 0:33:15.200
Chris DiPierro
Whether that is how clearly doesn't exist now, so whether that's a thing that support could you know a model that support could actually use at the moment?
0:33:15.210 --> 0:33:23.320
Chris DiPierro
Well, probably not clearly, but I think that is very clean from a where we go identity wise in the future.
0:33:24.240 --> 0:33:28.920
Vincent Oon
It's just want to raise one thing is that there are sometimes the Support need to.
0:33:30.970 --> 0:33:32.0
Vincent Oon
Need to have the data?
0:33:32.10 --> 0:33:44.320
Vincent Oon
That's because the customer saying that they are seeing the wrong thing and then they need the exact data view to make sure that they can reproduce that error and that customer view is being corrected on that.
0:33:44.270 --> 0:33:44.920
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:33:44.690 --> 0:33:45.810
Vincent Oon
That query that they.
0:33:45.20 --> 0:33:49.920
Chris DiPierro
Well and and and and and and again when I pushed on that like what he said was like fine.
0:33:50.160 --> 0:33:57.300
Chris DiPierro
The customer is driving and screen sharing basically, but not that if support is just accessing it on their own right so.
0:34:1.680 --> 0:34:3.310
Chris DiPierro
Hey again, you know, I know.
0:34:2.510 --> 0:34:4.990
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, I don't know how you would how you solve support.
0:34:8.150 --> 0:34:14.290
Stephanie Jones
Was just going to say, I don't know, you still Support issues without like seeing what is happening, you know.
0:34:15.260 --> 0:34:19.870
Stephanie Jones
But I so Chris, are you asking like how we support that?
0:34:19.880 --> 0:34:20.470
Stephanie Jones
Like what?
0:34:20.500 --> 0:34:20.840
Chris DiPierro
Well.
0:34:20.480 --> 0:34:22.440
Stephanie Jones
But how would audit and risk support that?
0:34:23.250 --> 0:34:26.140
Chris DiPierro
I I think I'm not really necessarily.
0:34:27.920 --> 0:34:29.870
Chris DiPierro
I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly what I'm saying here.
0:34:29.880 --> 0:34:32.10
Chris DiPierro
I think what I'm saying is I don't.
0:34:32.20 --> 0:34:41.370
Chris DiPierro
I think we would be hesitant on the platform side to build something that is more liberal than what we're described.
0:34:41.380 --> 0:34:46.910
Chris DiPierro
If that is the expected standards that the support team wants to hold themselves to in the future, right?
0:34:46.980 --> 0:34:51.910
Chris DiPierro
Like like I think one of the questions kind of came up very specifically in arc is like in a production instance.
0:34:51.920 --> 0:35:0.490
Chris DiPierro
Do we always provision like a support user if you will an idea Gen an admin user that you guys can that support can access and go do things in right?
0:35:0.600 --> 0:35:0.940
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:35:1.560 --> 0:35:20.960
Chris DiPierro
And if we did like JK brought up some of the challenges that that Intel's with it, like not showing that user in list of users and things like that right like where you might assign records and that that kind of stuff well kind of the guidance that I hear from essentially they had a support is like no we shouldn't be doing that right?
0:35:20.970 --> 0:35:24.470
Chris DiPierro
We shouldn't be provisioned automatically provisioning a production user.
0:35:24.560 --> 0:35:27.710
Chris DiPierro
We should be being a bit restrictive on that, right?
0:35:27.860 --> 0:35:39.830
Chris DiPierro
So I think what happened is I you know what I don't know if that's a big change in how your support team intends to support this product or not.
0:35:39.870 --> 0:35:42.440
Chris DiPierro
If it's not, then I don't know that there is a whole lot of take away in this.
0:35:42.450 --> 0:35:55.490
Chris DiPierro
And then just to confirm that that's what we're gonna do, if it if it is a big change, then I think there needs to be some conversations on the support side of things of saying like well, look, that's not gonna work for our world.
0:35:55.900 --> 0:35:56.70
Vincent Oon
Good.
0:35:55.500 --> 0:35:57.20
Chris DiPierro
We need to do something different, right? So.
0:35:59.510 --> 0:36:1.640
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, it does sound like a bigger conversation.
0:36:4.240 --> 0:36:5.60
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, yeah, sure.
0:36:1.650 --> 0:36:9.940
Stephanie Jones
I don't wanna speak on behalf of support because I don't know if they even are aware that that we're even having this discussion.
0:36:11.30 --> 0:36:11.460
Chris DiPierro
Well, we're.
0:36:11.470 --> 0:36:12.360
Chris DiPierro
We're they, they.
0:36:12.370 --> 0:36:13.580
Chris DiPierro
They asked about user grants, right?
0:36:9.950 --> 0:36:15.380
Stephanie Jones
Well, actually they are because they said how will we access but not about the data, yeah.
0:36:13.590 --> 0:36:16.80
Chris DiPierro
Like, that's where this all initially kind of came from, right? So.
0:36:23.240 --> 0:36:23.440
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:36:16.620 --> 0:36:23.530
Vincent Oon
Please this on my discussion with the the other team in the support for the other product, not just audit and risk.
0:36:29.10 --> 0:36:29.230
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:36:23.600 --> 0:36:31.880
Vincent Oon
They are practice also the for the support team doesn't have access to the production, they only access to the liar production light system.
0:36:40.420 --> 0:36:40.630
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:36:44.530 --> 0:36:46.210
Chris DiPierro
To the to the staging environment or yeah.
0:36:51.660 --> 0:36:51.840
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:36:57.600 --> 0:36:57.780
Chris DiPierro
Sure.
0:36:33.310 --> 0:37:0.860
Vincent Oon
That's for troubleshooting only, but if there's a circumstances where they need to test on the data, the data will be copied over to the production line environment for temporary basis with the help from I think technical services team or the car off team and and then after that that data will be deleted from from, from that environment, from the environment means they will never have access to the live system.
0:37:0.870 --> 0:37:3.150
Vincent Oon
So I think your suggestion makes sense to me.
0:37:3.900 --> 0:37:4.630
Vincent Oon
It should work.
0:37:4.570 --> 0:37:7.400
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, the the never has access to the live system part.
0:37:7.410 --> 0:37:8.830
Chris DiPierro
That's probably the easier bit.
0:37:9.40 --> 0:37:12.710
Chris DiPierro
The doesn't have access to any customer data.
0:37:12.920 --> 0:37:17.750
Chris DiPierro
Part is almost certainly the harder part of it, right is, I think if we're being realistic about it so.
0:37:19.350 --> 0:37:19.570
Vincent Oon
Yeah.
0:37:22.320 --> 0:37:22.540
Chris DiPierro
OK.
0:37:25.70 --> 0:37:25.680
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:37:19.580 --> 0:37:26.90
Vincent Oon
Yeah, that's how the other product doing, uh, they they get technical services or cause teams move the data.
0:37:26.50 --> 0:37:36.920
Chris DiPierro
And and and and and and and maybe that's the compromise for the time being, but I think Support needs to make sure that that's OK with, you know up there Tan with, with with policies and that kind of stuff.
0:37:36.930 --> 0:37:42.540
Chris DiPierro
I think that you know, the Vincent, the inherent risk in that there's definitely less risk clearly, right.
0:37:42.550 --> 0:37:48.280
Chris DiPierro
But the inherent risk there is you're still copying production data over to a staging environment, and then you're given access to a third party.
0:37:48.410 --> 0:37:50.390
Chris DiPierro
That third party could go do something with that data, right?
0:37:50.400 --> 0:37:53.0
Chris DiPierro
They could go leak that data somewhere or whatever, right?
0:37:53.10 --> 0:38:1.140
Chris DiPierro
So I think in the absolute purists sense, the answer of not being able to see any of the customers data is a good one.
0:38:1.420 --> 0:38:3.600
Chris DiPierro
But yeah, I understand the practicalities of it.
0:38:3.650 --> 0:38:17.530
Chris DiPierro
If if that's what support needs to do, then I just think they need to make sure that they Firefly that with their whatever new processes that they're trying to roll out, you know business wise and that kind of stuff to make sure that that that is consistent with that.
0:38:22.580 --> 0:38:30.270
Vincent Oon
I think there are also uh practiced where the data is mass means that maybe they will hide the sensitive data or change.
0:38:29.500 --> 0:38:30.290
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, maybe.
0:38:30.460 --> 0:38:31.510
Vincent Oon
Yeah, change it to.
0:38:30.940 --> 0:38:45.810
Chris DiPierro
But but but that that that sounds like a feature that probably, you know, internal audit and risk management needs to support if there's going to be some sort of masking of data based on like user permission set right then that would be something that you guys would need to to implement under the covers there so.
0:38:54.560 --> 0:38:54.810
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:38:56.830 --> 0:38:57.300
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:38:47.890 --> 0:38:58.380
Vincent Oon
Yeah, it means that the that data can be imported to, to to the Support environment, but they will not see the the real data the real completed.
0:38:57.350 --> 0:39:14.10
Chris DiPierro
Anyway, look again, purely from a platform interaction with our perspective, I think what what what I'm saying is we're in my opinion supportive of the notion of creating this kind of support User going forward in the future and identity services that can be unlocked for based on requests.
0:39:14.20 --> 0:39:17.830
Chris DiPierro
I think that is a thing that we absolutely need to support on the platform side of things.
0:39:18.70 --> 0:39:26.540
Chris DiPierro
If it How at you know as definitely none of the US are qualified on this call to answer, have support really needs to actually operate with the new products.
0:39:26.550 --> 0:39:29.880
Chris DiPierro
But I just wanna suggest that we're not gonna go.
0:39:35.230 --> 0:39:35.430
Stephanie Jones
Yeah.
0:39:29.890 --> 0:39:37.740
Chris DiPierro
Just be super permissive about this without kind of getting a little bit more clarity from from like a above that support team, right? So.
0:39:40.190 --> 0:39:40.470
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:39:45.330 --> 0:39:47.820
Chris DiPierro
Sorry Josh for hijacking the last 20 minutes.
0:39:48.790 --> 0:39:49.780
Joshua Haseldine
I don't worry.
0:39:49.790 --> 0:39:51.240
Joshua Haseldine
I have another question.
0:39:53.60 --> 0:39:53.220
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:39:55.410 --> 0:39:56.50
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, I think so.
0:39:51.250 --> 0:40:9.470
Joshua Haseldine
I just wanted to let you, Chris, sorry if if we finished on this by the way, cool, I I wanna talk about our Lord and Savior Gainsight and the timings and game site E because I am getting pushed back from the business that it.
0:40:13.280 --> 0:40:13.480
Chris DiPierro
OK.
0:40:15.490 --> 0:40:15.640
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:40:16.10 --> 0:40:23.250
Joshua Haseldine
And it was always stuck in a bit of a an issue where we we need some stuff from platform.
0:40:25.380 --> 0:40:27.230
Joshua Haseldine
I think I've had a great discussion with this about you.
0:40:27.300 --> 0:40:30.700
Joshua Haseldine
I can get the email up if I remember but.
0:40:29.420 --> 0:40:31.550
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, I mean, so, so.
0:40:31.620 --> 0:40:39.390
Chris DiPierro
So the thing you need for a given tenant basically is what's called the idea of the Gen application ID, right?
0:40:39.460 --> 0:40:42.80
Chris DiPierro
And right now the platform service is just don't provide that.
0:40:39.950 --> 0:40:42.290
Joshua Haseldine
Umm, that was it?
0:40:42.300 --> 0:40:42.710
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah.
0:40:42.750 --> 0:40:43.0
Joshua Haseldine
Thank you.
0:40:42.180 --> 0:40:48.70
Chris DiPierro
We've got it on our road map to be able to provide that, but yeah, they just don't.
0:40:48.120 --> 0:40:55.840
Chris DiPierro
So right now, if you wanted to implement game site, really what you would need to do is just kind of stash that information on a per tenant basis like somewhere else, right?
0:40:55.850 --> 0:40:57.690
Chris DiPierro
And I don't have a good answer to you.
0:40:57.700 --> 0:40:58.60
Chris DiPierro
Like what?
0:40:58.70 --> 0:41:8.480
Chris DiPierro
The somewhere else is, but certainly I think we can talk with Nige about potentially, but if you, if you could just, if you could do that, then you could absolutely enable PX at that point.
0:41:10.30 --> 0:41:10.350
Joshua Haseldine
OK.
0:41:12.630 --> 0:41:13.590
Joshua Haseldine
OK so.
0:41:15.930 --> 0:41:17.650
Chris DiPierro
I think in in the what?
0:41:12.90 --> 0:41:18.270
Stephanie Jones
So it would have to be in the platform itself, not coming from platform services.
0:41:19.450 --> 0:41:31.100
Chris DiPierro
Well, in, in in the longer term, yeah, it really should just come from like our provisioning services or our platform services like really what should happen, you know in, in Paul Martin typical UI of the future.
0:41:31.290 --> 0:41:37.160
Chris DiPierro
One of the things that he should have to enter is the idea agent application ID for this tenant.
0:41:37.710 --> 0:41:40.100
Chris DiPierro
That should then be stored somewhere in.
0:41:40.170 --> 0:41:45.40
Chris DiPierro
However, it is that we deploy that and by the way, when I say store, I don't even really cut a node.
0:41:45.50 --> 0:41:57.150
Chris DiPierro
The technology behind there, Keith, but basically one new button press there that should either you know be sent as part of the message that we send to the ARC products or whatever, whatever it is at that point.
0:41:57.160 --> 0:42:5.960
Chris DiPierro
But it should really be done at that probably at that point I would guess it would probably still be on Arctic store it somewhere at that point.
0:42:5.970 --> 0:42:12.120
Chris DiPierro
What once the provisioning is is is done, you can make an argument about being able to change this in the future.
0:42:12.130 --> 0:42:13.140
Chris DiPierro
It's not supposed to change.
0:42:13.150 --> 0:42:18.660
Chris DiPierro
Just FYI, like once it's just established for a given tenant for a given product, does it really shouldn't.
0:42:18.670 --> 0:42:25.260
Chris DiPierro
But presumably if it did change somewhere, we probably need a process to be able to modify it from there.
0:42:25.350 --> 0:42:32.860
Chris DiPierro
But yeah, right now we just, this is not a thing that we provide at provisioning time, but we we do need to make that change going forward.
0:42:32.870 --> 0:42:36.820
Chris DiPierro
But if you wanna implement PX ahead of that, I think you absolutely could so.
0:42:47.420 --> 0:42:47.600
Chris DiPierro
OK.
0:42:37.600 --> 0:42:51.460
Joshua Haseldine
Ah, OK I the reason I ask is I got pushback that we don't think we can do the I'm storing at the info on our and I I've got.
0:42:51.470 --> 0:42:54.770
Joshua Haseldine
I've had a few devs just to take a quick look at it and it's it.
0:43:3.190 --> 0:43:3.430
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:43:3.440 --> 0:43:5.220
Chris DiPierro
I mean it's like 1 string.
0:42:54.780 --> 0:43:5.280
Joshua Haseldine
It's definitely not easy as my point, like there's doubt, whether we could actually do it and I would have to jump through a lot of hoops.
0:43:5.230 --> 0:43:8.920
Chris DiPierro
I assume you've got a database back and stuff in ARC somewhere, right?
0:43:8.690 --> 0:43:9.170
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, yeah.
0:43:8.930 --> 0:43:11.360
Chris DiPierro
Like just drop that string in the database somewhere and there you go.
0:43:11.870 --> 0:43:20.470
Chris DiPierro
But but let you want me to grab an image for a quick call on it or.
0:43:19.560 --> 0:43:21.450
Joshua Haseldine
I think, Nigel, he.
0:43:21.520 --> 0:43:24.870
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, I I think we might need a bit of larger call around this.
0:43:24.880 --> 0:43:27.20
Joshua Haseldine
However, I'll need let me clarify.
0:43:27.30 --> 0:43:29.310
Joshua Haseldine
I tell you what, let me sell the call with.
0:43:29.560 --> 0:43:29.760
Chris DiPierro
OK.
0:43:30.270 --> 0:43:33.270
Joshua Haseldine
I was nice, but I need to have a word with.
0:43:36.360 --> 0:43:38.410
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, basically, just let me get everything in order.
0:43:48.280 --> 0:43:49.40
Chris DiPierro
OK. Yeah.
0:43:38.420 --> 0:43:50.260
Joshua Haseldine
Just so I know when I'm coming to this, that we definitely have a can't do it or it's gonna take a ridiculous amount of manpower to do before I I like what I come see you, but go on.
0:43:52.300 --> 0:43:52.640
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:43:52.650 --> 0:43:55.50
Chris DiPierro
I mean, did I don't know.
0:43:55.60 --> 0:43:57.20
Chris DiPierro
I have opinions about this, but that's that.
0:43:57.30 --> 0:43:57.660
Chris DiPierro
That's fine.
0:43:57.670 --> 0:43:58.90
Chris DiPierro
Let's let's.
0:43:57.30 --> 0:44:0.320
Joshua Haseldine
Well, I, I mean, like I like you said, it's a singular string.
0:44:2.910 --> 0:44:3.130
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:44:6.640 --> 0:44:6.890
Chris DiPierro
Umm.
0:44:0.370 --> 0:44:7.280
Joshua Haseldine
So in your in your head it might mean something completely different, and we might be going down the wrong the wrong wrong hole, but I don't know.
0:44:7.550 --> 0:44:12.0
Joshua Haseldine
I I I don't think we are, but I'm.
0:44:12.110 --> 0:44:14.770
Joshua Haseldine
I'm willing to accept that we might be wrong on this occasion.
0:44:15.530 --> 0:44:16.0
Joshua Haseldine
I'm.
0:44:16.430 --> 0:44:17.800
Joshua Haseldine
Let me let me do some talking.
0:44:17.850 --> 0:44:25.240
Joshua Haseldine
I'll set up a meeting between us at least as free, and I'll probably invite a few others just for development levels from our side.
0:44:26.130 --> 0:44:26.770
Chris DiPierro
Yeah, that's fine.
0:44:33.120 --> 0:44:33.620
Joshua Haseldine
Uh.
0:44:33.740 --> 0:44:34.240
Joshua Haseldine
Anything else?
0:44:34.720 --> 0:44:34.920
Stephanie Jones
And.
0:44:34.960 --> 0:44:35.930
Vincent Oon
I can can I?
0:44:36.0 --> 0:44:38.70
Vincent Oon
I just want to go back to the Support topic.
0:44:38.80 --> 0:44:38.370
Vincent Oon
Sorry.
0:44:39.280 --> 0:44:39.500
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah.
0:44:38.780 --> 0:44:43.30
Vincent Oon
Just want to ask about the the the temporary session that mentioned by Chris.
0:44:43.40 --> 0:44:45.330
Vincent Oon
Now, when can we have?
0:44:45.340 --> 0:44:54.960
Vincent Oon
That is, is that being built by your feature, Josh, that that, that one I saw the BFF the front end feature?
0:44:54.910 --> 0:44:56.750
Joshua Haseldine
The BFF is next.
0:44:56.760 --> 0:44:57.270
Joshua Haseldine
Sprint.
0:44:57.280 --> 0:44:58.180
Joshua Haseldine
What is sprints, right?
0:44:58.190 --> 0:45:3.520
Joshua Haseldine
So the BFF work is hopefully going to be done this Sprint so.
0:45:2.170 --> 0:45:6.440
Vincent Oon
I mean, I mean is that done then we get that feature.
0:45:11.420 --> 0:45:11.580
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah.
0:45:6.510 --> 0:45:12.680
Vincent Oon
So in the UI that that temporary access request, right, right. OK.
0:45:12.830 --> 0:45:16.730
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, that's that's literally a ticket on in our current Sprint at the minute.
0:45:17.660 --> 0:45:19.20
Joshua Haseldine
Uh, which?
0:45:19.900 --> 0:45:21.820
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, the point test BFF UI.
0:45:23.240 --> 0:45:25.320
Joshua Haseldine
So is there we're getting a dog?
0:45:26.240 --> 0:45:29.990
Keith Low
I Josh and when you mentioned BFE, is this the BFF that we discussed?
0:45:30.0 --> 0:45:32.100
Keith Low
Uh, quite number of weeks back.
0:45:34.400 --> 0:45:34.690
Vincent Oon
It.
0:45:33.590 --> 0:45:37.520
Joshua Haseldine
Sorry, you got after remind me which one cause I've been able to be F loop bye.
0:45:38.530 --> 0:45:38.910
Keith Low
Uh-huh.
0:45:36.850 --> 0:45:40.490
Vincent Oon
The BFF token right the the token that we are talking.
0:45:41.10 --> 0:45:51.440
Keith Low
Yes, I think a number of weeks back myself and Jasmine, we did ask and we were told it's actually low priority on your side.
0:45:52.490 --> 0:45:54.460
Keith Low
So if I hear heard correctly.
0:45:54.170 --> 0:45:57.270
Vincent Oon
Low party in the R1 not not not R2.
0:45:57.680 --> 0:45:59.360
Keith Low
So right now it's actually in your next spring.
0:46:0.890 --> 0:46:1.410
Vincent Oon
I believe so.
0:46:0.640 --> 0:46:1.880
Joshua Haseldine
Well, yeah, but we're not going.
0:46:1.890 --> 0:46:2.330
Joshua Haseldine
This won't.
0:46:2.340 --> 0:46:2.550
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah.
0:46:2.560 --> 0:46:5.830
Joshua Haseldine
So this is a next Sprint, but we're not going to release it for a like a while.
0:46:5.840 --> 0:46:10.590
Joshua Haseldine
But like it's, yeah, it's part of someone's like, plan is to work on this BFF side.
0:46:10.660 --> 0:46:16.340
Joshua Haseldine
Sorry, I wasn't part of those original conversations with yourself and Jasmine, so I'm not sure about the priority aspect of that.
0:46:19.960 --> 0:46:22.660
Vincent Oon
Because I don't see the other feature that relate to this topic.
0:46:22.670 --> 0:46:32.450
Vincent Oon
So then in the whole 2024 by David, so I believe this should be the one, maybe you can convert on that, Josh.
0:46:32.720 --> 0:46:33.730
Vincent Oon
I mean if that.
0:46:33.200 --> 0:46:34.950
Joshua Haseldine
I I sorry.
0:46:34.960 --> 0:46:35.380
Joshua Haseldine
Forgive me.
0:46:35.390 --> 0:46:35.810
Joshua Haseldine
What is?
0:46:35.820 --> 0:46:38.150
Joshua Haseldine
What exactly is it that I need to confirm here?
0:46:38.160 --> 0:46:45.990
Joshua Haseldine
Because I I it's like I said, I don't think I was part of original conversation today and it was BFF is something that we we would like to do when we had time to do so.
0:46:46.0 --> 0:46:47.380
Joshua Haseldine
That's, you know, we currently doing it now.
0:47:0.140 --> 0:47:1.550
Keith Low
I don't have anything more on my side.
0:47:13.410 --> 0:47:16.40
Chris DiPierro
Stephanie, are you in a third party at the moment?
0:47:16.50 --> 0:47:22.40
Chris DiPierro
Cuz wherever you're Internet is at the moment need to to tell, tell them to turn up the speed sickly.
0:47:23.270 --> 0:47:23.440
Vincent Oon
Yeah.
0:47:23.510 --> 0:47:24.410
Stephanie Jones
I keep glitching.
0:47:25.640 --> 0:47:26.340
Chris DiPierro
Yeah. You keep.
0:47:25.640 --> 0:47:26.450
Vincent Oon
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:47:26.350 --> 0:47:27.270
Chris DiPierro
Yes. Yes, yes.
0:47:26.870 --> 0:47:27.300
Stephanie Jones
I.
0:47:26.460 --> 0:47:27.410
Vincent Oon
Nice breaking.
0:47:27.320 --> 0:47:27.730
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:47:27.740 --> 0:47:28.570
Vincent Oon
You're you're breaking.
0:47:27.770 --> 0:47:30.270
Chris DiPierro
Yesterday and today you've been you've been a bit glitchy.
0:47:31.740 --> 0:47:32.990
Stephanie Jones
Yeah, yesterday was bad.
0:47:31.110 --> 0:47:33.50
Joshua Haseldine
Yeah, you better about a second delay on audio.
0:47:34.490 --> 0:47:34.620
Chris DiPierro
Yeah.
0:47:34.620 --> 0:47:35.290
Stephanie Jones
Oh jeez.
0:47:35.300 --> 0:47:35.670
Stephanie Jones
OK.
0:47:35.740 --> 0:47:36.140
Stephanie Jones
Thank you.
0:47:37.940 --> 0:47:38.190
Keith Low
OK.
0:47:38.200 --> 0:47:38.690
Keith Low
Thanks a lot.
0:47:38.700 --> 0:47:41.820
Keith Low
I I will summarize there today's meeting and send out email to all of us.
0:47:43.190 --> 0:47:43.710
Vincent Oon
Thank you, Keith.
0:47:44.470 --> 0:47:44.820
Keith Low
OK.
0:47:43.560 --> 0:47:45.100
Chris DiPierro
OK, so that's good.
0:47:44.830 --> 0:47:45.230
Keith Low
Thanks a lot.
0:47:46.310 --> 0:47:46.790
Stephanie Jones
Thank you.
0:47:46.110 --> 0:47:46.810
Vincent Oon
That's everyone.
0:47:48.150 --> 0:47:48.620
Keith Low
OK.
0:47:48.630 --> 0:47:48.800
Keith Low
Bye bye.
0:47:48.410 --> 0:47:48.820
Joshua Haseldine
Jazz.
0:47:48.200 --> 0:47:48.900
Stephanie Jones
Hey, bye.
0:47:48.510 --> 0:47:49.850
Vincent Oon
Have a nice day. Bye.
0:47:49.960 --> 0:47:50.160
Chris DiPierro
Right.


here's a detailed breakdown of the discussion points, organized by topic:
1. Licensing:
Expiration and Grace Period:
The licensing service will undoubtedly include expiration functionality, allowing licenses to expire after a set period.
A configurable grace period will be implemented after license expiration, with a default setting of 30 days for MVP. This allows continued product usage for a limited time while renewal is addressed.
To encourage timely renewals and prevent misuse, assigning new licenses will be blocked during the grace period. Existing users with active licenses can continue using the product.
License Types:
The platform offers flexibility by supporting any required license type without imposing limitations. This accommodates the evolving needs of ARC and its various modules.
License descriptions can be provided to clarify the features and functionalities associated with each license type, ensuring transparency for users.
The following license types are confirmed for implementation:
Essentials & Professional (Audit & Risk): These license types offer varying levels of access and features within the Audit and Risk modules.
Business User: This license type caters to users who require broader access across the platform, with a significantly high user limit (e.g., 10,000) instead of an unlimited allocation.
Enterprise (potential rename): This license type encompasses all features and functionalities across the platform, granting comprehensive access. However, the naming is under review due to potential misinterpretations regarding company size.
The technical implementation of "unlimited users" for the Business User license type is impractical. Therefore, a high user limit will be set instead.
Given the potential for frequent changes in license types due to product updates and evolving needs, the platform should be designed with flexibility in mind. This includes dynamic updates and mechanisms to easily incorporate new license types.
License Reduction:
Scenarios where license counts are reduced upon renewal (e.g., from 10 to 5) pose a challenge for user deprovisioning. Identifying which specific users to deprovision is not feasible within the system.
To address this, the system will trigger notifications to both the account manager and tenant admin, alerting them to the discrepancy and prompting action.
In cases where the number of provisioned users consistently exceeds the available licenses despite notifications, escalating the issue to the Hydrogen team (responsible for account management) may be necessary.
The system will implement a mechanism for frequent notifications if such discrepancies are detected, ensuring awareness and prompting corrective action.
2. Provisioning:
Provisioning UI:
Currently, user provisioning relies on manual API calls executed by the CloudOps team. This process can be cumbersome and prone to inconsistencies.
To improve efficiency and standardize provisioning, a dedicated UI is planned for development. This interface will streamline the process and reduce the technical expertise required for user management.
The responsibility for user provisioning after the UI implementation remains under discussion. Potential candidates include the CloudOps team, Level 1 support personnel, or other relevant teams. A decision will be made based on factors such as workload distribution and expertise.
As part of the provisioning process, the UI should capture the ideaGen application ID for each tenant. This ID is crucial for integration with Gainsight and potentially other systems.
3. Support Access:
Concerns & Ideal Standards:
Granting Support access to production environments and sensitive customer data raises significant concerns regarding compliance, security, and data privacy.
To mitigate these risks, the ideal standard is to completely restrict Support access to production environments. In staging environments, access should be limited to metadata (e.g., configurations, workflows) and not actual customer data. This access should only be granted after a specific request and approval by the tenant admin, ensuring control and transparency.
For troubleshooting scenarios where data access is unavoidable, screen sharing with the customer in control is the preferred approach. This allows Support to observe the issue while minimizing data exposure.
Current Practices & Challenges:
In some existing products, Support teams currently have access to production environments and customer data, often using shared admin accounts. This practice is inconsistent with the desired security standards and presents potential risks.
Support teams have expressed concerns about the ability to effectively troubleshoot and resolve customer issues without access to data. Reproducing specific scenarios and identifying root causes may require data visibility.
Transitioning from current practices to the ideal standard will require significant adjustments and process changes for Support teams. This includes adapting troubleshooting techniques and adopting new tools for data-less issue resolution.
Potential Solutions:
Implement a system of temporary access grants to staging environments where sensitive data is masked or anonymized. This allows Support to investigate issues without compromising data privacy.
Explore the creation of a dedicated Support User role with limited permissions and time-bound access to specific environments. This approach offers more control and auditability compared to shared admin accounts.
Open communication and collaboration with Support teams are crucial to understand their needs and challenges. This will allow for the development of solutions that balance security requirements with practical considerations for effective support delivery.
4. Additional Notes:
Audit Trail Issues:
Josh highlighted specific issues encountered with the audit trail functionality, specifically the inability to handle null values and performance concerns when dealing with large datasets. These issues need to be addressed before the audit trail can be deemed production-ready. The team will investigate and determine the appropriate solutions.
Gainsight & ideaGen application ID:
Josh inquired about the feasibility of Gainsight implementation given the current lack of support for the ideaGen application ID within platform services. Storing this ID within the ARC system may be a temporary workaround until platform services can provide it directly during provisioning.
Connectivity Issues:
Stephanie faced internet connectivity problems during the meeting, which impacted audio quality and participation. Addressing these connectivity issues is important for ensuring effective communication and collaboration in future meetings.


Re-read the transcript and then the discussion points above and see if anything is missed. If anything is missed, pls add to the discussion points.