Week 41
2nd October to 8th October 2023
Last updated
2nd October to 8th October 2023
Last updated
Vanu; Rojo; Fly; Waka; Tommy Frey [facilitator] [documenter]
We covered the Miroboard and discussed and ideated over the need to educate ourselves as Ambassadors with a more outward facing approach.
Rojo suggested a Masterclass style education approach including video, written and testing for accreditation. We discussed the archival process and whether it was a methodology of education.
The discussion pivoted into different political and governance systems including Meritocracy and Sociocracy.
1.45 hours
[Action] Intro style vids for the programs.
Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook
https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM4tvNgs=/?moveToWidget=3458764564914916912&cot=10
Description - Going through collected items and analyzing how to and if it should be organized Learning - Resource Organizing pages themselves are not fit for analysis and organizing [Decision] - Going forward we do not analyze Resource Organizing Pages Learning - Some collected items are outdated and have new version in different formats Learning - It requires collective practice of analyzing resources before we can distribute analysis tasks Insight - Some of the work we looked at brought out ideas how could we better version and come to alignment. Suggestion to try Consenz https://app.consenz.io/demo/active-agreements [Action] - Fly will try to use https://infranodus.com/ tool to see if it can help organize our documents Insight - We are making multiple two-dimensional visuals to organize assets Learning - The Systems Thinking approach to organising assets seemed useful Insight - This call we were able to analyze 2 items and organise only 1 item out of 9
[Action] Still looking for help to collect other workgroup assets and resources. [Action] The reward amount is increased to 20$/h [Action] Next call we will further analyze resources.
Not this week
Started with workgroup updates - see full recording including a discussion on the need for more transparency of our finances and decision making re: budgets
Then covered some mentions: - Mindplex writers contest - see https://stories-of-future.tiiny.site/ - Supervisory Council applications are closed, voting next week! - Voting for DeepFunding Round 3 is under way - Feedback session hosted by the DeepFunding focus group -> next week, October 12th
We finished by covering multiple DeepFunding proposals by our ambassadors.
No summary given
How to structure Ambassador rules around payments, tasks and anything related to financial activities?
https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM7pbrKE=/?moveToWidget=3458764565381195366&cot=10
Description - we decided last Treasury Guild we want to introduce workgroup limits, now we try to decipher what should they be Learning - Ambassadors and members in program are not able to follow Meeting Summaries and figure out the decisions made in each of the workgroups [Action] - Create a dedicated place for sharing only Decisions Insight - We were not able come to conclusion what should be the workgroup budgets Insight - following quarter we should budget Ambassador related activities in AGIX Insight - Meeting notes proposed quarterly budget for each workgroup that is leveled (if levels are agreed on we can adjust it accordingly later to fit to budget) Insight - We should allocate % rewards to reserve Insight - Meeting notes include quarterly results
Each workgroup should provide their budget projection for next quarter in AGIX
Archive Workgroup - Meeting 10
Andre, Stephen [facilitator], Kenichi, Newman, Felix. Vanessa
1 - GitHub Project Board - Stephen
Possible solutions to the Archive GitBook backlog were discussed. Concerns were raised about Safeguards against data loss in Discord. There were lengthy discussions on Bounties and templates for meeting summaries. Andre presented the draft interface for capturing meeting templates. Use of the Governance Gitbook was considered.
Ambassadors GitBook - Vanessa - 1:23
Archive GitBook - October 2023 - Vanessa - 02:20
LLMs to create archival finding aids - 02:56
Meeting Summaries from Ambassadors TH - 04:04
Archive WG Budget - Quarter 3 2023 - 07:23
Archive Gitbook - September 2023 - Vanessa - 11:10
Archive GitBook Backlog - Stephen - 21:05
Safeguards against data loss in Discord - 26:39
Publicising Archive WG meetings - 28:47
Bounties - Vanessa - 32:49
Guidance notes/templates for meeting summaries - 52:04
Tool Development - October 2023 - Andre - 56:24
Governance GitBook - 1:21:12
not this week
Headelf [documenter]; Curtis; Rojo; Tuso; Slate; Peter [facilitator]
Conflict Resolution Document
The meeting edited the conflict resolution document in a joint effort.
[Decision]: A decision was made to finalize the document and publish it to the greater community for 1 week of final editing and comments. After the week on different social media channels the document will be brought up at Town Hall for a broad consensus or vote depending on Community sentiment.
The discussion turned to the next topic Strategy would work on. The Round Table was discussed as a mediation and issue body.
Conflict of Interest was discussed. Supervisory Council was placed as our last resort in an appeal process, though the assumption was made by ‘us’ that the SC would accept.
The conflict resolution document was thought to be 90% complete. We agreed to finish editing it async before the next week's Town Hall.
1h 10 m
Editing the CR doc async. Headelf to finish, edit and polish prior to Town Hall.
Newman; Kenichi; Peter; LadyTempestt; LordKizzy; Vani [facilitator] [documenter] NB we note it’s not ideal to have same person both facilitating and documenting
Sucre n Spice
agreed as a correct record
Yes, Tevo has fixed the Calendar link in Getting Started;
No, the recording of 7th Sept onboarding session is not yet on Youtube (Sucre still to chase it);
no new ideas added yet to Onboarding WG - how can we support other WGs to onboard new people in their meetings
No new comments have been added RE: sharing the doc itself more widely e.g. on social media - we originally said we would, but [Decision] we agreed that it’s better to share link to the Getting Started channel itself. RE: suggestion of bounties for people to add further FAQs etc - we agreed it feels like overkill so [Decision] decided not to. In future we will just do a weekly check to see if there are any more comments in the doc, and leave it at that
We read through Onboarding WG - how can we support other WGs to onboard new people in their meetings - there have been no new comments, but people added some during the meeting. [Decision] we’ll defer this item to a future meeting [Action] People will continue to add ideas to the doc as they think of them.
Discussion continued from last week. We discussed general budget issues; then looked at the tasks we do in this WG, and how to determine a fair price for them.
Key points:
Note that Q3 was an experiment in using funding requests with no fixed spending limit
Q4 likely to change to fixed budgets for each WG (not necessarily same budget for each); details still being discussed in Treasury Review sessions. Some of Onboarding group have attended.
How each workgroup spends their budget is not just for treasury to decide. Control of own budgets = a form of decentralisation.
Having set budgets makes sense for transparency.
How much should be rewarded for specific repeating tasks? Should we assess one-off /non-repeating tasks in a different way?
Do we need baselines? How far should WGs be able to diverge from a standard? Are these basic tasks the same for all WorkGroups, or (for example) are some types of meeting harder to facilitate?
Need to look at longevity of the program and not overspend, Reward things that are beneficial?
But what works for us as a WG is important. Look at what we have done in the past? Maybe reassess in response to changes - for example, if loads more people come to meetings, harder to facilitate, so we pay more?
Specifics of our WG tasks:
Meeting agenda prep: [Decision] it is valid as a task, half an hour is fair, and price $5 is fair.
Facilitation: [Decision] $15 generally, and $20 if it's your 1st time, to encourage new people and recognise that it takes some courage to step up. Usually people with more experience get paid more - we want to try reversing this.
[Decision] We additionally want to pay $5 to someone to mentor a new facilitator (a short conversation after the meeting to discuss what went well and what didn’t)
Minute-taking: Does the task take 90 mins? Some think yes, some no. We compared with other WGs and realised that for them, the task doesn’t include editing, but we link the two as 1 task, making it longer. Minuting is not easy- you have to listen then write then edit, and you can’t take as full a part in the meeting. Also may be harder in techincal or complex meetings. Also, barriers around language skills - it’s harder to do it in your 2nd language, so maybe we should recognise that somehow. Should there be quality control - e.g. how easy the minutes are to read? or whether they are accepted as a correct record - and should it influence payment? Pay level of $15, $20 or $25 were suggested - we want to discuss further to try and get a consensus
Meeting summary templates from Archives WG: Vani would like to share the new templates with the group next week: Agreed. [Decision] add to next week’s agenda.
Meeting cancelled
not this week
No summary given
Kenichi [facilitator], Mikasa [documenter], CJFrankie,Devon Hardy, Peter, Judith, LadyTempestt, Slate
Sharing updates New tasks ideas General Agenda doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lwD43qt51Mt6RTc65ITGSJZ5Eeb504IP59WvcWgUr2k/edit?usp=sharing
There is not much update for the week as this is our first meeting of the month.
Tasks on the Dework board: new tasks have been put up, and old tasks are to be submitted and treated with priority.
The Deep Funding task is a priority, and applicants should make sure they stick to their submission timeline.
We need two more test submissions to have a total cap of 10 Scribblers.
CJFrankie brought a new task idea and shared insight on his article: Exploring the Role of AI in Human Society and Bioethics.
New tasks on Nunet and Rejuve Q3 will be on the board today: Nunet's Q3 2023 recap https://medium.com/nunet/nunet-quarter-three-2023-recap-91565c7aa054. Rejuve Q3 2023 recap https://blog.rejuve.ai/rejuve-ai-quarter-3-recap-special-announcements-on-app-redesign-hard-fork-feebc9c58586 Suggestions were made to either make infographics, write articles or thread for the Q3 articles [decision] We settled on Infographics and threads.
Questions were raised regarding members unable to apply to tasks on Dework. Kenichi suggested that tasks should be opened to anyone.
Great meeting.
Agus [facilitator], Peter, Lord Kizzy.
Discussed a little bit about the recent incident about the YouTube Singularity NET account. We were Peter and Agus for 20 minutes and when both jumped off, Lord Kizzy joined, so we had a little conversation.
none
none
Malik, Slate, Mikasa, Kenichi, New Man, Hufiumer69, Muhammad Ahmad, Dntmineifido, Devon Hardy
The meeting commenced with an announcement of the game to be played, which was Land IO. Slate provided some background information and explained the game to the attendees.
Slate also presented the rules for the game and the ranking method that would be applied throughout the gaming session. The rules included:
Three rounds of Land IO, each lasting 3 minutes.
At the end of each round, a leaderboard would be concluded and recorded.
Points would be awarded to the top 3 participants of each round as follows:
1st rank: 4 points
2nd rank: 3 points
3rd rank: 2 points
The game commenced with Slate guiding everyone on how to play, and each member was shifted to a private game section to begin playing.
The winners of each round were announced:
The first game was won by Devon Hardy
The second game was won by Hufiumer69.
The third game was won by Deon Hardy.
In the last 15 minutes of the event, an open room was provided for suggestions and questions related to the games and how to improve them.
Slate concluded the meeting by announcing that the leaderboard would be shared in the Gamers Guild channel on Discord. Winners would be tagged for their bounties on Dework.
Share the leaderboard in the Gamers Guild Discord channel.
Tag the winners for their bounties on Dework.
The meeting was successful in organizing a competitive gaming session and promoting camaraderie among the Gamers Guild members. Congratulations to the winners, Devon Hardy, Hufiumer69, and Deon Hardy!
