Week 16
Mon 15th Apr - Sun 21st Apr 2024
Last updated
Mon 15th Apr - Sun 21st Apr 2024
Last updated
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Peter [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], Peter, CollyPride, Judith, Nicola Salvagni, Stephen, Curtis, 5oundwave5, Photogee, WaKa, Robert Bedoya, esewilliams, Tevo, osmium, Godfather, Haley, Kenichi, Guillermo, Slate, CallyFromAuron, Gorga Siagian, hogantuso, oep, ToneTech, Will Tatz, Billy
Purpose: Regular weekly get-together for the Ambassador Program. Discussion of community-wide issues; sharing of updates and info; and in the last meeting of each month, an update from each Workgroup on what they have been doing
Town Hall Number: 93
The Ambassador Town Hall is a recurring event happening live on the Ambassador Zoom channel https://www.youtube.com/@SNET_Ambassador each Tuesday at 19:00 UTC.
00:00 Introduction And Mentions By Peter. 00:35 Discussions On Mentions 01:05 Details On The Ambassador Program 01:40 Deep Funding Updates From Judith. 03:12 Supervisory Council Blueprint. 14:00 Discussion On Rewards For The Decentralization Blueprint 27:35 Moderation Wg Discussions. 28:20 Facilitators Collective Presentation By Vanessa 33:00 Merger - Open Discussions 44:30 Alliance Wide Government 50:00 Discussion On Decision Making And Decentralization 53:30 Grace On Governance Of The System 01:03:00 Centralization & Decentralization In Singularitynet
Deep Funding Town Hall will be doing a retrospective of Deepfunding Round 4
Supervisory Council has budget to pay community members for their engagement with the Decentralization Blueprint; discussion of attribution for people's contributions, and open-source ethos; and discussion of how to decide how people will be paid.
Mention of new Moderator workgroup, which will be proposed for Q2 2024
Mention of the Facilitators' Collective and its self-paced training course for facilitators https://thefacilitatorscollective.wordpress.com/project-type/facilitation-course/
Discussion of the forthcoming token merger, and how we might collaborate with Fetch and Ocean in terms of governance https://www.superintelligence.io/, and who initiated the merger (46:51)
the new "community engagement group" from Marketing Guild requesting proposals for community engagement projects; questions about who is deciding and what are the criteria?
discussion of decision-making tools and testing them
topics covered: Token merger, voting, fetch and ocean, community governance, Facilitation, facilitators collective, moderator workgroup, moderator, deep funding town hall, Decentralisation Blueprint, RFP, fetch, ocean, Supervisory Council, community contribution, paying for community contribution, payment, community engagement, deep funding round 4, contribution, open source, open source ethos, attribution, Consenz, testing tools, decision making software, Loomio, Ethelo
emotions: Discursive, participatory, critique, questioning, holding to account
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Peter [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], Peter, CollyPride, Judith, Nicola Salvagni, Stephen, Curtis, 5oundwave5, Photogee, WaKa, Robert Bedoya, esewilliams, Tevo, osmium, Godfather, Haley, Kenichi, Guillermo, Slate, CallyFromAuron, Gorga Siagian, hogantuso, oep, ToneTech, Will Tatz, Billy
Purpose: Regular weekly get-together for the Ambassador Program. Discussion of community-wide issues; sharing of updates and info; and in the last meeting of each month, an update from each Workgroup on what they have been doing
Town Hall Number: 93
The Ambassador Town Hall is a recurring event happening live on the Ambassador Zoom channel https://www.youtube.com/@SNET_Ambassador each Tuesday at 19:00 UTC.
00:00 Introduction And Mentions By Peter. 00:35 Discussions On Mentions 01:05 Details On The Ambassador Program 01:40 Deep Funding Updates From Judith. 03:12 Supervisory Council Blueprint. 14:00 Discussion On Rewards For The Decentralization Blueprint 27:35 Moderation Wg Discussions. 28:20 Facilitators Collective Presentation By Vanessa 33:00 Merger - Open Discussions 44:30 Alliance Wide Government 50:00 Discussion On Decision Making And Decentralization 53:30 Grace On Governance Of The System 01:03:00 Centralization & Decentralization In Singularitynet
Deep Funding Town Hall will be doing a retrospective of Deepfunding Round 4
Supervisory Council has budget to pay community members for their engagement with the Decentralization Blueprint; discussion of attribution for people's contributions, and open-source ethos; and discussion of how to decide how people will be paid.
Mention of new Moderator workgroup, which will be proposed for Q2 2024
Mention of the Facilitators' Collective and its self-paced training course for facilitators https://thefacilitatorscollective.wordpress.com/project-type/facilitation-course/
Discussion of the forthcoming token merger, and how we might collaborate with Fetch and Ocean in terms of governance https://www.superintelligence.io/, and who initiated the merger (46:51)
The new "community engagement group" from Marketing Guild requests proposals for community engagement projects; questions about who is deciding and what are the criteria?
Discussion of decision-making tools and testing them
topics covered: Token merger, voting, fetch and ocean, community governance, Facilitation, facilitators collective, moderator workgroup, moderator, deep funding town hall, Decentralisation Blueprint, RFP, fetch, ocean, Supervisory Council, community contribution, paying for community contribution, payment, community engagement, deep funding round 4, contribution, open source, open source ethos, attribution, Consenz, testing tools, decision making software, Loomio, Ethelo
emotions: Discursive, participatory, critique, questioning, holding to account
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], Felix, Photogee, CallyFromAuron, PeterE, osmium, guillermolucero, SucrenSpice, Duke
Purpose: Weekly GovWG Meeting
On “naming”,
How to frame it? This quarter, we are trialling consent decision-making processes, so we need a proposal. Should it be "change the name" or "don't change it"? Which one is used would probably affect the results, since generally people tend to agree with a proposal rather than argue against it. Proposal is that it should be a 2 step process: “Change the name” but without specifying what to change it to, and then decide what the new name should be afterwards.
We need a context-setting doc to explain what decision is being made, and maybe collate some pros and cons that have been shared in the community already. These should be sourced (i.e. not our opinions, but things that have been said up to now, ideally with links). Onboarding WG can do this.
Citizen OS (the proposed decision making tool for this decision) seems quite intuitive, so altho Onboarding could also look at creating a video walkthru of it, this is probably not needed.
We didn’t agree how we will progress the naming decision, or who will share it with Core Contributors and when.
On tooling,
We discussed using Citizen OS or Unanimous tool (both free and OS) for the Naming and Q2 Budget decisions, and agreed on Citizen OS
Unanimous could give us a demo: Week of 22nd April?
People could also use both of these tools in their workgroups - either for real decisions, or simulated ones
We didn’t decide whether we will try to use 1 account or everyone create their own.
We agreed that whenever a tool is used, the users should collect some feedback on how it went. - There was discussion of what the criteria should be to assess a tool - suggestions are being drafted in the doc Gov Sandbox Turn #1 - Testing Tools but we didn’t finalise it or decide how and where to share the criteria.
Concerns were raised on privacy/transparency - we don’t know who can see people's responses in Citizen OS and agreed we need to find out, and tell people, before we ask them to use the tool.
On Q2 budget:
We agreed there should be individual decisions on each WG’s budget. There are 14 WGs in total, but not all of them will need to submit a budget request for Q2 due to rise in token price and/or budget elements from Q1 carrying over, so it will be fewer then 14 decisions.
There was discussion of whether we should set a deadline for all budgets to be submitted and only ask Core Contributors to decide once all the budgets are in, because then we can make informed assessment of the budget allocation overall; or whether it should be a rolling process to accommodate WGs who submit their budget late. We decided to set a deadline for Q2 budgets to be submitted, but didn’t agree on the date.
Briefly discussed what the criteria should be for making a decision on a budget, and what should be shared with Core Contributors about this; but didn’t make a decision on this. Carry over to next Governance meeting.
We started drafting in the Governance Sandbox:Tool Testing doc how the decision will be set up in Citizen OS. Agreed Guillermo will set it up but we didn’t agree a date - just some time in April.
To be discussed further in a Treasury meeting:
whether budget approval should be related to the WG’s quarterly report for the previous quarter, and whether they have done what they said they would do?
what level of flexibility a WG should have to reassign their agreed budget in response to changing conditions. Not definitely agreed on?
Naming decision
Q2 budget decision
Testing decision making tooling
Whether budget approval should depend on submission of a quarterly report for the previous quarter
Criteria for making a decision about a WG's budget.
On “naming”, the decision that core contributors will be asked to make is only about the name of the role, nothing else.
[rationale] We should not try to change anything except the name of the role at this point. We are currently meant to be trialling a specific approach (a flat structure based on “you either meet the criteria to be a core contributor, or you don’t”) for the whole of Q2; and we will need to complete that, and get some feedback and analysis of how it worked, before trying to test a different structure.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We will use CitiZenOS for both the Ambassador Naming decision, annd the Q2 budget decision; and will run it as a consent process (i.e. asking for objections, and for what would need to change in order for an objector to give their consent)
[rationale] As a way of trying out the tool; and to fit with our decision to trial consent decisionmaking throughout this Quarter
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed to consent on each WG’s Q2 budget individually, in contrast to how it was done in Q1 where the consent process was for the budgets as a whole.
[rationale] To allow people to differentiate between WGs whose budgets they approve, and those they don't.
[opposing] Counter argument that WGs should be free to decide internally what they think is valuable, so the decision should just be on consenting to the overall total across all WGs; but this was a minority view.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed there should be the same deadline for all WGs for Q2 budget submission, but we didn’t say what that date should be.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Onboarding will produce a doc to explain what the decision on naming is, and collate some pros and cons that have been shared in the community already. [assignee] Onboarding WG members [due] 23 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo to set up the Q2 budget decision in CitizenOS [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 30 April 2024 [status] todo
topics covered: tooling, consent process, deadlines, Q2 budget, Naming, core contributors, Ambassadors, workgroups, simulated decisions, CitizenOS, criteria, what WGs value, values, Unanimous, budget flexibility
emotions: Good natured, Only a few of those present spoke, woolly, indecisive, Discursive, muddled
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Stephen [facilitator], Stephen, Vanessa [documenter], Vanessa, Stephen, André, lord kizzy, SucrenSpice, Photogee, Tevo, SoundWaves, duke peter, esewilliams
Meeting video: Link
Working Docs:
We agreed our Q2 budget, see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/131 and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d9j-IPA0wary0EdR8YIoKl1BF0mAtkV_dgTs0hSnzAs/edit?usp=sharing
[rationale] After discussion and decisionmaking on ideas for budget items from WG members, removing some items that we did in Q1 and no longer need, and adjusting prices for some of the "bounty-style" tasks that are continued from Q1 to reflect the amount of work they involve, we agreed a final budget request for Q2 of $7,670
We note that the Supervisory Council will be discussing, and hopefully deciding on, our input on supporting their knowledge management processes with the Blueprint doc on 19th April 2024, which has been in discussion since January 2024.
[rationale] They now have clarity on what budget they have (tho it will obviously be dependent on token price); and the SC's term of office ends in May so a decision is needed
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
On timestamping BGI videos: we noted Duke has needed to drop out due to pressure of other work. Also - it's now 8 videos, not 9. Timestamps will be added as comments, rather than in the description
[rationale] Only 8 videos because the 9th has already been timestamped. Timestamps as a comment, rather than in the description: no need to organise access to DF Youtube; also, makes it transparent who did them.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[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] 1 May 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Onyeka and Ese to timestamp BGI videos [assignee] esewilliams, lord kizzy [due] 1 May 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] 1 May 2024 [status] in progress
[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] 17 April 2024 [status] done
[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] done
[action] Sucre to add the Q1 quarterly report to Ambassador GitBook when ready [assignee] SucrenSpice [due] 1 May 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Vanessa to DM participants in tag taxonomy project, and set a date for training session [assignee] Vanessa [due] 1 May 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Progress the idea of doing a TH session on how we use GitHub [assignee] Stephen, André, Vanessa [due] 1 May 2024 [status] todo
[action] Vanessa to find out whether Strategy Guild is now folded into R&D guild, or whether theyre still separate and will be submitting separate meeting summaries [assignee] Vanessa [due] 25 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Core Archives team to meet with Ubio on Mon 22nd April to clarify the focus of his work in Q2 - sentiment analyisis or dashboard? [assignee] Stephen, Andre, Vanessa, Ubio [due] 22 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Ese to talk to Kenichi to find out whether Writers WG are currently doing meeting summaries; and if so, whether they plan to add them via the Tool; or if not, could they add them at least to their spreadsheet here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S1M-IlMnI4WPL2c_ojOeIExvWU-bkzfamirE5_Ls9-4/edit?usp=sharing [assignee] esewilliams [due] 1 May 2024 [status] todo
topics covered: Q1 quarterly report, Q2 budget, community engagement, engaging new people, Quarterly Report, Tag taxonomy, forward planning, Reporting, Miro Board, colabs, langchain, AI tooling, open source, document management, closing issues, github board, monthly archiving
emotions: positive, new people present, entertaining, Friendly, Ambitious, forward-looking, participatory
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Curtis, Guilermo [facilitator], Onyeka [documenter], Photogee, Ubiodee, 5oundwave5, Vasu, Peter, WaKa
Purpose: R&D Discussions
Working Docs:
Final Q1 Report and deliverables status
Budget Request presentation for R&D Guild Quarter 2.
Allocation for supporting upcoming open source initiatives from SingularityNET foundation
Helping on the MeTTa documentation and playground page Q2 R&D Guild Objectives
Operations: Update. Improving R&D Manager Tools. Introducing R&D Github Projects.
Governance SandBox: Decision-making tools.
Onboarding: New proposal for development
Conclusions Q1: what we can improve?
Discussions on Q2 Budget Proposal
Discussions on GitHub integration for Project management
Discussions on allocation for supporting upcoming open source initiatives from SingularityNET foundation
Final discussions on Q1 report and deliverables
Updates on development by Curtis, Ubio, WaKa.
Discussions on helping on the MeTTa documentation and playground page Q2 R&D Guild Objectives
We decided to change the time slot for our meetings from 18:00 to 16:00 UTC
[rationale] Guillermo and some other members complained on the meeting time being inconvenient for them.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Rojo to continue building the back end 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] Curtis and Rojo to create a document for showcasing our progress (deliverables) in the guild [assignee] Curtis, Rojo [due] 3 April 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Guillermo to have a call with Ubio on providing assistance to the multilingual project [assignee] Guilermo [due] 11 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Guild members to add their contributions to the docs [assignee] All Members [due] 17 April 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Ubio, WaKa, Rojo to add their contributions to the R&D _ Q1 Proposal Report _ Template. [assignee] Ubiodee, WaKa, Rojo [due] 17 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Lord kizzy to message Rojo on how he could contribute to the Automated Social Media project. [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 17 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy to share his Doc on ways he could contribute to the R&D Guild [due] 24 April 2024 [status] todo
topics covered: Guilds , Budget , Tool Development, Proposal, AI tooling, API, deliverables, incentives, Q2 budget, open source, contributing, Automated, social media, automated social media, Quarterly Report, Q1 quarterly report, multilingual, meeting time
emotions: Collaborative, productive, Thoughtful , speedy
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], Slate, Clement Umoh, Photogee, GorgaSeagian, Peter, malik, osmium, WaKa, SoundWaves, Billy
Purpose: ACP Quizzes Review Team update , Andamio platform introduction by Malik, Google Classroom introduction by Slate, Pricing discussion about both the platforms
Working Docs:
ACP Review Team updates
Andamio platform
Google Classroom platform
Pricing discussions
Meeting started with Slate welcoming everyone to the meeting
Osmium shared some concerns of Duke regarding his quiz review
Osmium than gave some updates regarding quizzes review
Slate than moved on the topic of introduction of ACP platforms
Then Malik showcased his presentation regarding the Andamio platform
Everyone was concerned with the pricing of Andamio platform
and also the complexity of understanding the platform as a whole by the participants
Then there was a proposal to invite Tevo to once of the education guild meetings to introduce Andamio
Then Waka mentioned that we should be adding Fetch and Ocean to the ACP as projects
On this Peter said that it would be best if we let them create these resources for us and for that we could reach out to them
Waka said that he would be interested in doing that
Then Slate shared the Google Classroom platform presentation
Everybody liked the platform as a whole and its easiness to interact with
There were positive insights for the platform by the group
Reach out to Fetch and Ocean
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Create a real time presentaion for Google Classroom
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Presentation with real quiz submissions, reviewing and marking for test run [assignee] Slate [due] 23 April 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Reach out to fetch and ocean [assignee] WaKa [due] 23 April 2024 [status] in progress
topics covered: ACP, review, platform, quizzes, Fetch, Ocean
emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike, speedy
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Tevo [documenter], Tevo, Olokoji, lord kizzy, André, Photogee
Purpose: Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook
Miro board: Link
Transcript: Link
Other media: Link
Working Docs:
We have new feedback on the workgroup onboarding form.
We will postpone the onboarding improvements discussions until we can async do the Organizing steps.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Discuss Onboarding improvements and insights on form improvements. [status] todo
Our approach to organizing (5min video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ8FYsFb0TQ
We found seven times more places where Feedback Form Item could fit in the organizing window.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] The rest of the three Onboarding workgroup items we put up for the async test round [status] todo
How much budget we have left? ~2k AGIX Left
How much experience do we expect from participants?
Organizer and Organizer Reviewer Roles
Role activities and process
Role Rewards
Two people should organize each Async item. (we can afford the quality and diversity of thought)
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
To obtain an Organizer and Organizer Reviewer Role, you must attend one session where we Organize Items live.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We use purple sticky if we want to remove items from organized places.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We use Miro Board Kanban to manage Organizing Items Async.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Organizing Item Rewards is based on the default hourly rate and the average time it takes to complete an Item.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
The first five Organized Items give 50% less rewards for a contributor.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Organizing and Reviewing have the same rate
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Test Organizing one Item by the end of 24th April [status] todo
[action] Test Reviewing one Organized Item before the next session. [status] todo
topics covered: organizing, review, Budget , Onboarding, Ambassador GitBook, Miro Board
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Tevo [documenter], Tevo, Peter, Vanessa, Olokoji, Photogee, Billy, Guillermo, Gorga Siagian, 5oundwave5
Purpose: Structuring Ambassador rules around payments, tasks and anything related to financial activities
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Writers WG
Treasury Guild Documentations (decisions, meeting summary)
incentives
What we recognize?
We will recognize the Consent Question (Title) and participants who chose any option in the form
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We assign utility tokens as rewards
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Continue utility token discussion in Governance Workgroup [status] todo
What has been done before?
What do we need from the Proposal?
Ambassador Program Consent Process
S3 guide for potential objection solving https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/principle-consent.html
What blockers can people bring up against budget requests?
After funding measures
Proposal Request Cap
Ambassador Program Q2 Budget proposal final deadline is 24th April 2024
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We will collect proposals through the Treasury Guild channel.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Only Contributor Role blockers will stop the proposal from passing
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Prepare voting tools and channel for all this decision making that is about to come [status] todo
[action] Decision for next session: do we have the capacity to run 2nd cohort of proposals for Q2? [status] todo
topics covered: Miro Board, procedures, Proposal, Cohort, On-Chain, Quarter, Governance, Budgets, Rewards, core contributors, consent decision making, Q2 budget
emotions: Discursive, inconclusive
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: LadyTempestt [facilitator], Gorga Siagian, lord kizzy, CallyFromAuron [documenter], LadyTempestt, André, SucrenSpice, CallyFromAuron, Gorga Siagian, lord kizzy, Peter, CollyPride, others unknown
Purpose: Weekly meeting discussing how to onboard people to the Ambassador program
Media link: Link
Working Docs:
Onboarding Workgroup's regular meeting was replaced this week by a session led by André Diamond from Treasury Guild, giving information on how payments are processed in the Snet Ambassador Program, how to identify your rewards and other treasury topics. The session was aimed at new people, to help them onboard by improving their understanding of how the Treasury system works. See https://youtu.be/Um7Zv5F9TyA?feature=shared
Next meeting we revert to our normal agenda, and pick up items from our last meeting on 11th April
topics covered: wallet, Treasury, treasury dashboard, payments, Token merger, yoroi, treasury guild operations, Zealy, Writers WorkGroup, Dework, AGIX, ASI token
emotions: interesting, participatory
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Rafael Presa [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], Jan Horlings, jay05|judithW, Rafael Presa, Ubiodee, Tommy Frey, others unknown
Purpose: 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.
00:00 Start 00:11 Decentralization Of Artificial Intelligence For Web 3.0 03:13 Successful Round With New Features And Improvements 09:20 Platform Opening On April 22 For Account Creation And Proposal Submission 12:10 Community Involvement And Expert Reviews During Proposal Process 18:08 Introduction To New Funding Pools 20:55 Proposals Must Align With Singularitynet Mission And Abide By General Requirements For The Decentralized Ai Marketplace. 26:09 Be Open To Funding Guidelines And Follow Mandatory Fields For Eligibility 28:41 Review Period Guidelines And Expectations 33:45 Rules Of Eligibility Are Clear 36:21 Proposal Submission Timing Optimization 40:45 Encouraging Decentralization And Community Participation 43:10 Discussing The Integration Of Ai Projects With Singularity Net 48:02 Discussion On Creating New Projects And Using The Miscellaneous Pool 50:17 Deep Funding Pools Provide Financial Support For Project Development. 55:43 Introduction Of The Miscellaneous Pool To Promote Community Creativity 58:14 Proposal And Voting Without Guard Rails As An Experiment 1:03:16 Creating An Rfp Advisory Board For Rfp Selection Process And Budget Allocation. 1:05:41 Importance Of Rfp Specification And Limiting The Number Of Rfps 1:10:17 Community Driven Rfp And Transition To Organic Rfp Process 1:12:36 Rfps And Pools Discussion 1:18:27 Contributors Rewarded With Logo Merchandise And Potential Expert Review Group Invitation. 1:21:27 Opportunity For Agix Reward And Expert Review Groups Participation 1:26:08 Different Funding Mechanisms Have Varying Financial Requirements 1:28:30 Setting Budget And Balancing Requirements In Rfps 1:33:19 Difference Between Rfps Based On Idea Focus And Detailed Specifications 1:36:04 Community-driven Proposal Submission And Award Process 1:41:10 Appreciation For Community Participation
This Town Hall was mainly an outline of the timeline and rules for Deep Funding Round 4.
topics covered: decentralized AI, Web3, deep funding round 4, Deepfunding proposal platform, expert reviews, community, funding pools, AI marketplace, Proposal eligibility, review, Proposals, Miscellaneous, Miscellaneous pool, creativity, voting, testing voting behaviours, RFP, RFP advisory board, Community RFPs, timeline, Deepfunding Round 4 timeline, RFP design pool, knowledge graph
emotions: monologue, long, detailed
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], devon [documenter], malik, hogantuso, Zalfred, Photogee, osmium, killy, GorgaSeagian, 5oundwave5, oep, Billy
Purpose: The meeting focused on task updates, Zealy updates, and community engagement
Working Docs:
Weekly meeting agenda outlined by Slate
Malik, the social media manager, provided a rundown of the weekly updates and also shared information about Zealy.
Hogantuso, the task manager, provided updates on the weekly management tasks.
Discussion on the process of Zealy
Improving community engagement
A representative from Gamers' Guild explained their Roblox game and asked some questions about the video workgroup for inclusion in the game.
topics covered: social media management, workgroup updates, new people, Zealy, videomaking, Roblox, Gamers' Guild, community engagement
emotions: Friendly, Casual, positive, Thoughtful
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Kenichi [facilitator], Cjfrankie [documenter], Kenichi, Cjfrankie, Mikasa, LadyTempestt, ines ganina, Slate, devon
Working Docs:
The NuNet community town hall has commenced. Ines Gavina shared some interesting ideas that might help us produce more articles in the future. Kenichi gave an update regarding the Cogito articles from last year; the third piece is on its way! Kenichi explained how Dework tasks are being reviewed. Kenichi shared more insights into the “Scribe" role: anyone with this role can seamlessly claim tasks on Dework. Deliberations on whether the Scribes should attend the weekly meetings; how long Scribbers should hold the Scribe role and what minimum threshold they should have.
Kenichi wants the Scribblers to do a recap on every NuNet TH.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Kenichi to chase Kareem regarding updates on the brand assets [assignee] Kenichi [status] done
[action] Kenichi to write the first NuNet community town hall recap before assigning it to any Scribe. [assignee] Kenichi [status] done
topics covered: Scribe role, Rejuve, Q2 recap, Nunet, Cogito, Points system, NuNet Town Hall, Dework, Cogito articles
emotions: quiet, informative
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], devon [documenter], malik, rebel, hufiumer69, lord kizzy, Gorga Siagian, 5oundwave5, flyn, Billy, Dr Strange, AndrewBen
Purpose: Task Assignment and Procedures for Task Execution
Working Docs:
Slate outlined the meeting agenda
discussion on monitor role in information collection
Discussion on the presenter's role in information collection.
discussion on other platforms for game creation
Discussion about the layout of the model
Discussion on game development on Roblox
[action] Gorga to create next game for the gaming session. [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 27 April 2024 [status] todo
[action] research regarding decentraland [assignee] devon [status] todo
Combat Shooting Game The person with least amount of deaths wins
1st Dr Strange
topics covered: Rewards, Budget , Roblox, participation, Task Assignment
emotions: Friendly, Collaborative, engaging new people
games played: Combat Shooting Game
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Tevo [documenter], Tevo, Peter, Vanessa, Olokoji, Photogee, Sound Wave, Billy, Guillermo, Gorga Siagian
Purpose: Structuring Ambassador rules around payments, tasks and anything related to financial activities
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Writers WG
Treasury Guild Documentations (decisions, meeting summary)
incentives
What we recognize?
We will recognize the Consent Question (Title) and participants who chose any option in the form
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We assign utility tokens as rewards
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Continue utility token discussion in Governance Workgroup [status] todo
What has been done before?
What do we need from the Proposal?
Ambassador Program Consent Process
S3 guide for potential objection solving https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/principle-consent.html
What blockers can people bring up against budget requests?
After funding measures
Proposal Request Cap
Ambassador Program Q2 Budget proposal final deadline is 24th April 2024
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We will collect proposals through the Treasury Guild channel.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Only Contributor Role blockers will stop the proposal from passing
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Prepare voting tools and channel for all this decision making that is about to come [status] todo
[action] Decision for next session: do we have the capacity to run 2nd cohort of proposals for Q2? [status] todo
topics covered: Miro Board, procedures, Proposal, Cohort, On-Chain, Discursive, Quarter, Governance, Budgets, Rewards, Inconclusive