Week 14

Mon 1st Apr - Sun 7th Apr 2024

Tuesday 2nd April 2024

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

Results of the consent process for Q1 budgets:

  • 17 people took part, out of a possible 31 Core Contributors.

  • Anonymised results here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Zv3rTL6d8L8LriEuBcFyT-hxkMu5PDXb2wF1uZ61Zrg/edit?usp=sharing

  • There was 1 objection, saying that WG budgets should be scrutinised individually, on the grounds that some budgets (Writers, Video, Education) were unjustifiably high, so some costs should be reduced. (NOTE: for the Q1 budget decision, the form simply asked people to consent to all the budgets en bloc, or not.)

The objector also raised the issue of reserves: "It's better we do have spare budget allocation taking advantage of the (high) AGIX price because there could be days where the price doesn't remain as high as it is."

We reminded ourselves of the consent process we agreed on: if anyone objects, even if they are in a minority, their objection will still be discussed and addressed; and only if the issues cannot be resolved will the consent form be re-done. The second time, the budget will pass if 80% of those responding are in agreement, so that a single objection does not derail things completely. So we agreed that yes, we do need to address the objection in a meeting, and scrutinise the budgets of Writers, Video and Education WGs. We also noted that it can be daunting to be the "lone voice" who stands up and objects to something that others agree with - but that nevertheless, the onus is on the objector to justify their objection.

Key discussion points:

  • does the consent process generate excessive overhead? (Stephen)

  • how centralised is the process? (Stephen) We noted that in the past, the budget approval process was done by a closed group of "Ambassadors" (about 7 people). Raising this to 31 Core Contributors inevitably brings additional overhead, but this is fundamentally a positive and decentralising move.

  • The burden of justifying a budget, and constant enquiries into the minutiae of whether a budget is valid, can be negative and even malicious; e.g. in Cardano's Project Catalyst, where people have been trolled with constant sealioning inquiries about their budgets. Scrutiny cannot be ongoing indefinitely, and there needs to be some onus on the objector to justify their concerns. (Stephen)

  • Perhaps WGs should have autonomy to use their budgets on whatever they think is valuable; so in future, the decision shouldn't be about picking holes in individual totals, but more about whether WGs have explained their budget and whether they have put systems in place to track whether they've spent it the way they said they would; and about whether their budgets fit the total Program budget. (Vani)

  • Conflict of interest: funding recipients are also the decision-makers on funding. As a structural, point-of-principle issue, there should be a treasurer role (group or individual) who does not receive any other funding, and only validates budget requests. (Stephen)

  • It would be difficult to find someone to do this, since everyone is involved with a WG in some way (Peter).

  • Since we want to take an experimental approach, we should be ready to make changes from Quarter to Quarter, and take risks and try new approaches. (Felix). The meeting agreed this issue should be looked at further, and noted that it might take time to resolve.

  • Closed Discord channels: if the objector can't see the details of what a WG is doing because they can't see the group's Discord channels, that's not the objector's fault (Peter)

  • Workgroup autonomy: if you're not part of a WG, you don't really know what goes on in that group, so your objection might not be valid - and if you want to preserve your anonymity, there is no way forward (LadyTempestt)

  • Anonymity in decisionmaking - the person who raised the objection isn't here (Stephen)

  • Work quality: Victor outed himself as the objector. Example of high costs from Writers' WG of $100 for a single article. Are there checks on the quality of such articles, or on whether they reach their target audience, and whether any engagement is authentic and not farmed? (Victor)

  • Importance of attending a WG’s meetings before objecting: Writers’ WG has addressed all these questions in our recent meetings (LadyTempestt)

  • It’s fine to want to scrutinise the quality of each other’s work - but that needs to be a separate discussion, and should not be brought into the decision on budgets. We all have different ideas of what type of work is worthwhile or valuable - and in a decentralised ecosystem, different opinions are valid. If we are autonomous, we should not try to enforce our ideas of valuableness by trying to withold budget from each other. (Vani)

  • What would need to change for Victor to consent? Maybe if we recognise we need to improve quality control and we created a separate initiative to look into the quality of WGs’ work? (Felix)

  • Importance of understanding a workgroup before commenting (Tuso)

  • Initially I wanted to track WG funding with KPIs as we do in Deepfunding. But I now think workgroups can justify their budgets, so I would go against my previous feeling, and consent. I plan to attend more meetings to understand how the ambassador program works (Victor)

Several people expressed thanks to Victor for raising the issues and being prepared to break his anonymity.

  • Sharing info: Maybe we need to make basic information more available to newer people - a brief for each workgroup, what they take in money, what they deliver, and how that is approved and accepted. But we don’t follow the more formalised process that is used in DeepFunding - here, a more organic system has evolved. So we might never have people reviewing the milestones of each work group, because we're not at that scale, but we might take a step towards that by communicating so people can easily access that information. (Stephen)

  • Decentralisation vs standardisation on monitoring budgets: The current approach is a quarterly “broad sweep” approval - we don't check every single deliverable before releasing funds, it's not like milestone-based delivery. For simplicity, I prefer this approach; but getting funding should mean some responsibility. I would agree with a standardised way of explaining budget spending, and demonstrating where the money went. That doesn't jeopardize the decentralization too much. (Peter)

  • Style of reporting: Currently most groups write a narrative quarterly report. Perhaps it should be more spreadsheet-like: for each line of your budget, a short note to say how you dealt with it - whether you spent it all, and what you produced. Each work group could find their own way of formatting that information - all those different approaches might help us find something that works for everybody. (Vani)

  • I would agree with more standardised reporting: part of the quarterly report should include a very easily understandable overview of which funds are spent, how, what the outputs are, the deliverables (Peter)

  • Quarter two budgets: Based on what we have learnt this Quarter, what would be a valid reason to approve or not approve them? Some people in the room feel it’s about work quality, but we haven't defined what we mean by “quality”; and other people don't think that's the issue at all, so we need to have that conversation. (Vani)

Discussion Points:

  • Budget Approval; should individual workgroup budgets be scrutinised?

  • Details of the consent decisionmaking process

  • Conflict of interest, and the idea of an independent treasurer role who isn't part of the funding application process in any other way

  • Anonymity in decisionmaking

  • Workgroup autonomy; the importance of attending a group's meetings and being aware of their achievements before objecting; and whether we should avoid bringing assessments of the value of each other's work into the conversation about budgets.

  • Quality control on Workgroup outputs - should we do this; if so how; and should it be related to funding decisions, or kept as somerthing separate?

  • Differences between DeepFunding and the Ambassador Program in terms of how budgets are tracked and reporting is done

  • Decentralisation vs standardisation on monitoring budgets

  • How should we approach Q2 budgets - what is a valid reason to approve or not approve a budget?

Decision Items:

  • We do need to address the objection that was raised, and scrutinise the budgets of Writers, Video and Education WGs. This will be done in a follow up meeting.

    • [rationale] Because the consent process we agreed on was that if anyone objects, their objection will be discussed and addressed; and only if it cannot be resolved will the budget pass on the basis of 80% of those responding being in agreement.

We agreed to do this in a follow-up meeting to give members of those WGs time to prepare to address concerns

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We will at some point look further into the idea of a treasurer/budget validator role who is independent and not a recipient of WG funding.

    • [rationale] To resolve the potential conflict-of-interest that the decision-makers on budget issues are currently also the recipients of funding

    • [opposing] Not an objection, but a recognition that most people in the Program are part of one or more WGs so it would be hard to find someone who is not at all a recipient of funding.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We will think and iterate further on how we report, and how we assess WGs' achievements

    • [rationale] Because this process has raised several ideas, including the idea that reporting could be more standardised.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Victor (the author of the only objection) withdrew his objection; so Video, Writers' and Education WGs' budgets are all accepted, and overall, the Q1 budget passes without the need for a further round of consent

    • [rationale] Victor has been convinced that the budgets for these WGs are justifiable.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: consent process, consent decision making, Writers WorkGroup, Education Guild, video workgroup, workgroup autonomy, anonymity, objections, validity of objections, treasurer, conflict of interest, Reporting, Quarterly Report, Decentralization, Core Contributor, value of work

  • emotions: Discursive, Thoughtful , diverse, insightful, complex

Wednesday 3rd April 2024

Research and Development Guild

Agenda Items:

  • R&D Discussions on proposal updates

Discussion Points:

  • Discussions on updates on projects (TECHNICAL UPDATE by Waka, Curtis & Ubio,) and deliverables

  • Discussions on project management and the use of GitHub

  • Discussions on q1 budget and payments for contributors

  • We had a massive number of 20 participants in the multilingual survey conducted by Ubio

Decision Items:

  • We made a decision on Ubio giving incentives (50%) to contributors on his project

    • [rationale] rewards should not be given for participation but rather contributions

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Rojo to continue building the backend and conduct backend testing with members of the project who manage the social media account. Once that is done, then build the front end [assignee] Rojo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Guillermo to assist the other teams to get some deliverables [assignee] Guillermo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Rojo to create a GitHub account for the group [assignee] Rojo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Curtis and Rojo to create a document for showcasing our progress (deliverables) in the guild [assignee] Curtis, Rojo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Curtis and Guillermo to have a call to see where we are as a Guild, how we integrate with how treasury and archives workgroups work [assignee] Curtis, Guillermo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to attend the next Treasury meeting on 5th April, 2024 [assignee] Guillermo [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to have a call with Ubio on providing assistance to the multilingual project through some Brazilians [assignee] Guilermo [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guilds, Budget, Tool Development, Proposal, AI tooling, GitHub, API, deliverables, incentives

  • emotions: Collaborative, productive, Thoughtful, speedy

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], Slate, esewilliams, Kenichi, Clement Umoh, Photogee, duke peter, WaKa, GorgaSiagian

  • Purpose: Videos, Quizzes, Q2 Budget request, Module-based budgets, Participation-rewarding

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Videos

  • Q2 budget Request

  • Ways to improve budgets

Discussion Points:

  • Meeting started with Slate welcoming everyone to the meeting

  • Duke mentioned that his video on Cogito is completed and he would like to showcase it

  • Slate then shared Duke's video on Cogito

  • After watching the video the floor was opened for comments on the video

  • Most of the people had comments of adding names of the main team members

  • Duke said that he will be making the small adjustments and then uploading the video

  • Then Slate showcased the budget request he ideated for Education Guild

  • Some comments were made on the budget request like removing the participation rewards,

  • Proposed a module based budget request

  • Then at the end Slate assigned some quizzes to some of the participants

Decision Items:

  • Work on budget

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Complete ACP Video and infographic

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Platform suggestions for ACP

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Next quarter budget discussion in the next meeting. [assignee] Slate [due] 9 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Assignment of quizzes [assignee] Slate [due] 2 April 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Setup reviewing process for Quizzes [assignee] Slate [due] 2 April 2024 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: ACP, review, Budget, Q2 2024 budget, Proposals, platform, quizzes, Video Script

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike, speedy

Archives Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Stephen [facilitator], Stephen, Vanessa [documenter], Vanessa, Stephen, Onyeka, oep, SucrenSpice, Olokoji, Photogee, Gorga Siagian

  • Meeting video: Link

  • Working Docs:

Decision Items:

  • Quarterly report for Q1 2024 - there have been a couple of minor changes suggested. Also we want to try out presenting it in a format that is more closely linked to our budget request - e.g. via notes on the budget spreadsheetfor Q1

    • [rationale] spreadsheet approach might connect reporting more closely to budget request, to support tracking and accountability, which is something that has been discussed in general terms in Treasury Guild meetings

    • [opposing] The existing text-based format is probably more readable, and allows a WG to make narrative points about how their work has gone. Worth trying both formats.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Tag taxonomy project - suggested training date of 1st April wasn't possible (bank holiday) so will look at later in April

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Last meeting's suggestion of a TH session on how we use GitHub - we forhgot to pick this up as an action item, so we will add it this meeting.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Decided to keep the meeting shorter than usual (1 hr) since there was not so much to discuss

    • [rationale] Since André was absent, we didn't discuss tool development work

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Stephen to check why SucrenSpice doesn't seem to have permissions to merge changes on Ambassador GitBook - still can't work out why [assignee] Stephen [due] 3 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] RE: Duke, Onyeka and Ese to timestamp BGI videos - Onyeka will check with Peter that it's not already being done. Also there have been more videos uploaded, so now a total of 9, so 3 each [assignee] duke peter, esewilliams, lord kizzy [due] 17 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Duke to create a video walkthru of how to use the GitHub Board, based on Stephen's training session - see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/116 [assignee] duke peter [due] 20 March 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Vani to bring finished version of Q1 quarterly report to the 3rd April meeting - Done [assignee] Vanessa [due] 3 April 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Sucre and Vanessa to raise the issue of quarterly reports, and whether more WGs should write them, in the Treasury Guild meeting tomorrow (21st March 2024) [assignee] SucrenSpice, Vanessa [due] 21 March 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Everyone to suggest possible new bounties or entry-level tasks for Q2 budget, to discuss next meeting - some people would still like time to contribute so this will be finalised next meeting (17th April) [assignee] all [due] 3 April 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Vani to send Q1 quarterly report to Peter (and, if time, create 2nd version based on the budget request spreadsheet) [assignee] Vanessa [due] 17 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Sucre to add the Q1 quarterly report to Ambassador GitBook when ready [assignee] SucrenSpice [due] 17 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vanessa to DM participants in tag taxonomy project, and set a date for training session [assignee] Vanessa [due] 17 April 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Q1 quarterly report, encouraging use of Archives, bounties, timestamps, Q2 budget, community engagement, engaging new people, Quarterly Report, accountability, GitHub, BGI 2024 summit, Tag taxonomy, Reporting, forward planning

  • emotions: positive, new people present, short, Friendly

Knowledge Base Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Tevo [facilitator], Tevo [documenter], Tevo, Clement Umoh, Olokoji, lord kizzy, Felix

  • Purpose: Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook

  • Miro board: Link

  • Other media: Link

  • Working Docs:

Agenda item 1 - Quarterly report: Knowledge Base WG - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Shared Draft quarterly report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_u4kYNusZdGOq1xK8km54mOsBloM9oXGXzqpv9DxU4/edit?usp=sharing

  • Improved Onboarding feedback loop

Action Items:

  • [action] Participants are welcome to introduce new insights on the report. [status] todo

Agenda item 2 - Miro Board Overview and Onboarding Process - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Showed around Miro Board and introduced to workgroup processes https://youtu.be/aVg_N2notVE

Agenda item 3 - Analyzed and organized asset relations with - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Organized Process Guild GitBook asset

  • Organized Translation WG GitBook asset

  • Ideated on async organizing process

Decision Items:

  • In the next session, let's organize one item where, in each category, a different person shares thoughts.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Thursday 4th April 2024

Treasury Guild

Agenda item 1 - Q1 Budget Final Results - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • How do we want to present results?

  • How do we want to show proposal status?

  • What is missing, and what is irrelevant?

Decision Items:

  • All Treasury Guild Q1 Proposals are approved with the date at 02.04.24

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Create a voting result report starting with Q2 proposals

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Create an efficient way to see AGIX spent by each guild and WG in WG Budget Calculator [status] todo

  • [action] Create a separate channel for all contributors where proposals requiring consent are dropped into [status] todo

Agenda item 2 - Q2 Budget Requirements - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Should Treasury rules that affect proposal acceptance criteria be changeable and implementable in Quarter 2?

  • Should we have continued onboarding and approval for proposals throughout Q2?

  • How can we avoid assessing proposals without creating the feeling that proposals are being heavily scrutinized?

Decision Items:

  • 02.05.2024 we approve the first cohort of proposals that make it through the consent process and update the remaining limited quarter 2 budget

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Have a discussion on how to bring up workgroups better in Governance WG [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Treasury Guild Proposal and Guiding Material - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • The available supporting material to help create proposals and examples.

  • What do we propose for Quarter 2 in Treasury Guild?

  • Proposal feedback

Action Items:

  • [action] Create a consent form so that contributors can vote on the Treasury Guild proposal [status] todo

  • [action] Update the Seed Workgroup column in the WG matrix tables based working starting doc [status] todo

  • [action] Create a paragraph about proposal changes to the proposal if it is an update [status] todo

Agenda item 4 - About Ambassador Program - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • What's the difference between Guilds and Workgroups?

  • Do we want to make a clear distinction between Guilds and Workgroups?

Decision Items:

  • We should have a common understanding of the differences and when they are used.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Draft extra information about this and include it into onboarding docs where relevant [status] todo

Agenda item 5 - Questions about AGIX to ASI Merge - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Brainstormed different common ideas and our questions on the Miro Board

  • Answered a few questions at the meeting

Action Items:

  • [action] Create a Q and A doc to address those questions as best we can [status] todo

Onboarding Workgroup

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Minutes from the last meeting and action items

  • Budget projections for Q2 2024

  • Making educational content for SNET

  • Publicizing our research report via infographics

  • Idea of assigning someone to keep abreast of what WGs are doing, and signposting new members on Discord to an appropriate WG

Decision Items:

  • 2 old members and 2 new members will facilitate the onboarding session scheduled for 16th May 2024.

    • [rationale] to share the work out fairly, and to ensure that the new people are learning from established members

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed to move forward with the new members buddy system, where new WG members are assuigned a "buddy" from among the established members to give them 1 to 1 support. Note that we will evaluate the system and how well it worked at the end of Q2.

    • [rationale] Need to get started and see how well it works; and there are new people in need of a buddy, so the sooner we start, the better

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • The need for assigning someone to keep abreast of what WGs are doing shouldn’t be a separate task. We agreed that it should be added to the budget as part of Sucre’s activities.

    • [rationale] Otherwise it could end up duplicating what Sucre already does

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Clement to facilitate our Town Hall update on 30th April 2024. [assignee] Clement Umoh [due] 30 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Sucre to send the Q1 quarterly report to Peter [assignee] SucrenSpice [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to chase Peter to take the doc “ DRAFT: process for starting a Workgroup in the Ambassador program,” to the governance WG. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 9 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to write up his proposal for making SNET educational content. [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Lady Tempestt and Duke to make minor changes to their infographics about the Treasury session on 18th April [assignee] LadyTempestt, duke peter [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

Learning Points:

  • We should ensure we use brand colors/assets for making designs in the future.

To carry over for next meeting:

  • Onboarding Journeys

  • Making an infographic for the onboarding journeys

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: buddy system, Q2 budget, Treasury session, Town Hall update, Q1 quarterly report

  • emotions: funny , Deliberative, insightful

Deep Funding Town Hall

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Jan Horlings, Judith [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], Jan Horlings, Judith, Juan Pablo Barea, CallyFromAuron, Mauro Andreoli, Steve, Duke, Franklynstein, Rafael Presa, zk, Clement Umoh, esewilliams, soubhir, guillermolucero, read.ai meeting notes, WaKa, Ubiodee, PeterE, LadyTempestt, Mario Casiraghi, Headelf, killy, Jon Grove, electronige, Ana Paula Pereira, Photogee, Alex, Loic

  • Purpose: Discussion of Deep Funding Round 4 Pools and DF Branding Manual and Guidelines

Timestamped video:

DeepFunding Town Hall is a fortnightly meeting led by the SingularityNET Ambassador community, where we share updates, presentations & conversations about topics that relate to Deep Funding and SingularityNET.

00:03 Intro And Discussion On The Upcoming Token Merger Of Singularitynet, Fetch Ai, And Ocean Protocol. 04:06 Asi Token Merge Impact On Treasury And Deep Funding's Scope 09:38 Engaging With Ocean And Fetch For Joint Proposals 12:37 Discussion On Potential Delay In Starting Deep Funding Round Four 18:05 Discussion About Potential Downsides To The Token Merger And Pricing Impact. 20:21 Conservative Approach In Awards Led To Valuable Saved Tokens For Future Beneficial Use 25:15 Deep Funding's Intention To Become More Decentralized 27:47 Discussion On Shared Or Co-funded Pools And Rfps 32:44 Deep Funding And Deep Funding Treasury Will Remain Separate. 35:13 Merger Will Bring Asi To Cardano And Ethereum With Enhanced Utility. 40:02 Proposal Related To Ai Services Integration With Ocean's Predictor Framework 42:24 Discussion On The Necessity Of Storing Data On-chain 47:16 Openness To Partnership With Organizations For Decentralized Ai 49:41 Accelerated Minting For Decentralized Computing Power. 54:49 Migration To Asi And Bridges Between Blockchains 57:16 Minting Asi Tokens For The Same Value With Less Hassle 1:02:16 Timing Is Right For Building Potential Partnerships 1:04:33 Discussion On The Name Of The New Alliance 1:09:32 Migration Contract May Take Some Time 1:12:03 Discussion On Time Differences And Meeting Scheduling 1:16:54 Introducing Rfp Proposals For Funding 1:19:28 Consider Using Rfps For High-value Proposals 1:24:01 Optimizing Platform Performance And Migration To New Service Provider 1:26:32 Using Ai To Create A World Model For Predicting Weather Globally

Town Hall Summary:

This TH was primarily an AMA with the DeepFunding team about the ASI token merger; it also touched on how the merger might affect plans for DeepFunding Round 4, RFPs, and partnerships.

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: deep funding round 4, RFP, ASI token, Token merger, ocean, fetch, AMA, Partnership, Treasury, Decentralization, Decentralisation, shared pools, shared RFPs, onchain data, DF platform, weather

  • emotions: informative, participatory, questioning

Governance Workgroup

Discussion Points:

  • Ambassadors Naming - how do we name ambassadors/contributors? Should we keep the name "Core Contributor" or revert to "Ambassador"? Should the name of the program itself be changed? blocker: time & people to solve it

  • Q2 budget - what should be the process on WG budgets for Q2 2024? blocker: time & people to solve it

  • Governance tools & know-how. What are good use cases for tools? blocker: clear use cases to test use of tools

  • uniFires (a Catalyst funded project to support connections between Polkadot and Cardano) & SNET - how to connect them or make links between them on governance issues? particularly on the issue of 1p1v Blocker: available time & people

  • Peter mentioned the forthcoming token merger of SNET, Fetch & Ocean, which will enable collaborations with their respective Ambassdor programs, something to look and think about

  • Peter mentioned the idea to set up a Moderators WG, enable resources for folks like Demonix (server admin)

Decision Items:

  • We agree there is some momentum on 1P1V (one person, one vote) & Governance at UniFires/Polkadot. 1P1V is a major strategic objective of GovWG.

    • [rationale] because we agree that plutocratic voting (1c1v, one coin one vote) is unfair and undesirable, and privileges richer people in decision-making.

  • we agree a Moderators WG would be a good idea, and GovWG will support it if needed (e.g. by folding it into our own Q2 budget)

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agree that the Naming decision could be the next decision that Core Contributors are asked to make, using a similar Consent process as we use for budget decision

    • [rationale] Because it has been raised several times, and would perhaps be a good topic to practice consent decision making.

    • [opposing] We note that the decision should only be about the name of the role ("Core Contributor"), and not at this stage about the idea of renaming the Program

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agree that the budget process for Q2 should be similar to what was done for Q1, except that WGs/Guilds should be required to submit a quarterly report about what they did in Q1, as well as a budget for Q2.

    • [rationale] Accountability and transparency, and to enable core contributors to make an informed decision on whether or not to aproave a WG/Guild's budget.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Onboarding WG members have created a context-setting document on the Naming decision (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cFhmCL9ip8I8UoglDU1_hhpL5PMHpTVoAnNgTZjhG_k/edit?usp=sharing) to define process how to get reflection & insights from current contributors & Ambassadors [assignee] CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Sucre n Spice [due] 11 April 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Plan a retrospective session on what worked & what didn't for the decision on the Q1 2024 budget. This could take place in a Governance meeting. [assignee] all [due] 18 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Set up a "governance sandbox" for testing governance tools- reach out to Core Contributors & ask if they can engage in tool testing, for real decisions in their WGs or for imaginary ones. Write up reports & documentation under open source licences (e.g step by step guide). [assignee] all [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Reach out to some SNET folks and ask them to engage with UniFires, establish a small group of SNET folks to engage at uniFires - create a blog post on 1P1V with uniFires - bring the topic up in SNET Ambassador Town Hall [assignee] guillermolucero, Felix [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Ask Treasury Guild to set up a new sheet for the Q2 budget at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BBogj9rAO52cpdGP3uvp8hAHNa4Qw66lz9JLjSC2yVs/edit#gid=2094170945 and ask all Guilds/WGs to submit their Q2 2024 budgets together with a quarterly report [assignee] Tevo [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Governance, community governance, Q2 2024 budget, core contributors, renaming Ambassadors, 1p1v, UniFires, Polkadot, Q1 quarterly report, quarterly reporting, governance sandbox, governance tooling, testing tools, retrospective, Q1 2024 retrospective, consent decision making, moderator workgroup, Token merger, fetch and ocean

  • emotions: Friendly, Collaborative, Conclusive

Friday 5th April 2024

Video Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], hogantuso [documenter], lord kizzy, malik, hogantuso, Zalfred, Photogee, osmium, killy, Colleen, Zibah, WealthWissy, electronige, Olokoji, Hamzat_iii, GorgaSeagian, devon

  • Purpose: The meeting focused on task updates, video suggestions, onboarding process, and ASI merger

  • Working Docs:

Discussion Points:

  • Weekly meeting agenda outlined by Slate

  • Malik, the social media manager, gave a rundown on the weekly updates.

  • Hogantuso, the task manager, gave updates on the weekly management tasks

  • lord kizzy, the town hall editor, gave more updates on the Zealy task discussed with kenichi as the previous Social Media Manager.

  • Acquaintance and introduction of new members

  • Updates and improvements on the video application was discussed

  • Voting on the creation of ASI merger video by Rojo.

  • Voting on the creation of voting procedure tutorials on ASI alliance

  • Slate, the facilitator, updated the new members on how to apply to become a member of the workgroup.

Action Items:

  • [action] Rojo's video suggestion about the ASI Merger was approved. [assignee] Rojo, Crandano [status] todo

  • [action] voting procedure tutorials on ASI alliance [assignee] osmium, hogantuso [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: social media management, workgroup updates, new people, Task Assignment, BGI 2024 summit, Zealy, ASI toekn merger, Town Hall, workgroup membership

  • emotions: Friendly, Thoughtful, speedy, Casual, productive, Organised, engaging new people, positive, productive

Writers Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Kenichi [facilitator], Cjfrankie [documenter], Kenichi, Cjfrankie, Mikasa, LadyTempestt, Nebula1224, 5oundwave5, ines gavina

  • Purpose: Reflection on what we’ve achieved this month and quarter.

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

We discussed Q2 projections and what we might need to improve this quarter. Open discussion on how to become a Scribe; the Scribe role will be assigned once our Medium publication kicks off. The graphics/brand assets are still in progress; once that is done, we shall kickstart the Medium publication. Our attendance last month was pretty high, and had great numbers: we published 12 articles last month and 28 pieces in Q1.

Decision Items:

  • We will kickstart the Medium publication once our brand assets are finished

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Scribe role will be assigned once our Medium publication starts.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Kenichi to draft the document for the Q2 project budget, and submit it to Treasury Guild. [assignee] Kenichi [status] todo

  • [action] Kenichi to work on implementing the NFT badges for roadmap accomplishment. [assignee] Kenichi [status] in progress

  • [action] Peter to give Inés Gavina the Scribbler tag. [assignee] Peter [status] done

  • [action] Kenichi to onboard some new Scribblers this quarter. [assignee] Kenichi [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Zealy, Scribe role, Points system, Scribblers, Peer review, Brand kit, Medium publications, NFT badge, Budget , Q2 budget, attendance

  • emotions: informative, Welcoming, insightful

PreviousApril 2024NextWeek 15

Last updated

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License