I'm still getting easily confused about the 2 types of users #2
Not a single client would want Reviewers to be able to access/export all documents in the client workspace.
Any solution we come up with should take future enhancements into account. We've had some discussions about document folders and groups and how those would play into permissions. I imagine it would make sense for some organizations to have their workspace broken up into "working groups". Each of these working groups could be represented by a user group, and instead of inviting individual users to individual documents every time, they could invite a group to a document, or invite a group to a document folder. It's easy to make a big mess of permissions with flexible tools like that though - especially if we then create "private documents" or "private document folders" which are invite only. Someone who doesn't want to invite reviewers that have access to all documents doesn't have to do that. I'd like to see what clients think of our invite system as is before removing major aspects of it. As designed, it's very similar to Slack.
Manager is quite similar to admin. I think of manager as a moderator type role. They're like authors except with the ability to edit others' issues. Admins have the ability to invite users which can dramatically impact the cost of the workspace. I think it's important to separate moderator like abilities from the ability to affect the cost of the workspace.
I don't think we would charge a client that has Admins, but no documents.
As currently designed, we charge per seat without exception (other than free reviewers and inactive users). It's easier to code a simple per seat charge and also easier to explain the billing. I didn't think we would have workspaces that would want users before documents - at least for a long time. Having an account with no documents for more than a month at a time doesn't make sense to me. I was considering auto generating an application manual in each new workspace, which would mean every workspace would have at least 1 document by default, unless they deleted it. That gives them something to engage with and learn the application through.
Many projects have happened since this was created and they seem to validate out user system and user roles.
I created a new workspace "Tom's V3 Test". I am the only user to start (I haven't created a document yet), so I explore and go to invite Members. There's the option to invite Authors and Reviewers, which doesn't make senseto me outside the context of a specific document. I've recently been doing demos with new prospective clients (on the current Collaborase), which means the user needs are fresh in my mind, but I am also thinking back to all clients I've dealt with. Not a single client would want Reviewers to be able to access/export all documents in the client workspace. That option should be removed. I also can't think of any case where a client would want all Authors to be able to access/export all documents - that option should be removed also. At the Workspace level, the Admin role makes sense to me (Manager is nearly the same). So a client could have 1 or more Admins - based on what I know from clients so far, that would be convenient (big improvement over the current Collaborase). I don't think we would charge a client that has Admins, but no documents. However, any Admin that creates a document would trigger the billing ($25/month/author).