Week 34
Mon 19th Aug - Sun 25th Aug 2024
Monday 19th August 2024
AI Ethics WG
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: CallyFromAuron, Sucre n Spice [facilitator], Onize, CallyFromAuron [documenter], CallyFromAuron, Clement Umoh, Yemi Solves, LadyTempestt, barnabas, Ayo, GorgaSeagian, malik, Effiom, Advance Ameyaw, Onize, Seun Tunde, aetherblade, guillermolucero, PeeGee, Duke, CollyPride, Sucre n Spice
Purpose: Regular Meeting of the AI Ethics WG/Money Issues
Meeting video: [Link](No video)
Transcript: [Link](No transcript)
Narrative:
The first part of the meeting was a discussion of money and pay, prompted by issues that have arisen in the WG so far. We were aiming to come to agreement on fairness and accountability, and establish general principles on e.g. late work, illness, non-contribution, etc, and how to distribute rewards/payments in those situations. We acknowledged the need to be flexible and understanding, but also recognised the risk of people taking advantage of too much flexibility, especially around deadlines. We also recognised the importance of people communicating if they won't be able to meet a deadline; and the importance of establishing, at the start of a particular task, exactly how it will be assessed and paid.
Some decisions were made, but further discussion is needed on some issues, so the group agreed to continue to discuss async in the shared doc "Money questions", and to try to reach agreement on outstanding issues at its next meeting.
The group then worked through the issues on the GitHub board.
There is still some disagreement on how the strategy-writing tasks (now in "Done" on the board) should be paid to fairly reflect people's contributions. It was agreed that the Admin team will step in to try to facilitate reaching agreement.
Due to pressure of time in the meeting, we agreed that for the "In progress" tasks, people will update Issues that are assigned to them as needed, rather than going through the whole board in this meeting.
We looked at the "To do" task of interviewing people about their attitudes to AI ethics, and noted that members' proposed interviews add up to around $1,000 over budget. Despite posts in the WG Discord channel asking people to lower their totals, nobody has; so we agreed that the Admin team will amend the suggestions, and post a redraft in Discord for people to agree to or not. We also agreed that training will take place in the first week of September, when everyone is likely to be back from holidays. We also noted that we want to do further interviewing in Q4 2024, so we will include a budget line for interviews in Q4, and people can propose anything that was over budget for Q3 in the next quarter.
We noted that the "AI conversations" budget line we had in the Q3 budget has to be cut, to fit the budget to the current low AGIX price; but again, we will aim to include it as a budget element in Q4.
Decision Items:
For task deadlines, we should avoid Fridays and weekends
[rationale] because there is a natural "grace period" over the weekend - it's pointless to have a deadline on a Friday, since no work is likely to be done over the weekend, so might as well make it midnight on Sunday
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
If someone does no work at all on a task, they should not be paid, even if it's due to illness.
[rationale] The group agreed on a principle of "no work, no pay" in such cases.
[opposing] There was some mention of the idea of sick pay, but we felt that the Ambassador program probably cannot support it at this stage; and we noted that even though it's a cornerstone of some people's cultures, it's alien to others.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
If someone doesn't do a task assigned to them, we should aim to hear from them before making a decision such as reassigning the task - but we shouldn't wait indefinitely
[rationale] 48 hours after the deadline was suggested as a waiting time, though it was recognised that it might depend on the urgency of the task
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
If someone doesn't take part in a shared task that was assigned to them, their share of the money for it should be split between those who did do the work, rather than going back into the overall pot
[rationale] Working on the principle that if someone drops out, that means more work for the rest of the team, which should be recompensed
[opposing] There was a suggestion that sometimes working alone is easier, not harder - but it was agreed that it's not less work, just work that some people may find easier. It should still be paid.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
However, we might need to give more thought to why a task is being shared, and be less eager to share tasks out between people unnecessarily. NOTE: this was something of a "lightbulb moment" in the conversation
[rationale] It might not always need to be, and sharing it might be more about an attempt to give everyone a role, than because the task truly needs input from more than one person.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
On the reason for sharing tasks - we recognised there's a difference between a collaborative task (everyone does a bit of the same thing) and a compound task (each person does a different thing), and it may be important to define which one it is
[rationale] If it's collaborative it’s harder to assess contribution, and we might need to evaluate whether it really needs to be split between sevaral people - but if each team member is doing a different thing, it’s easier to see if Person A has or hasn’t done the part that’s assigned to them
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
It's helpful to establish the principles around payment at the start of a task: what work is expected, what's the deadline, how will it be assessed, what will happen if expectations are not met, how will unused funds be dealt with
[rationale] for clarity and fairness, and to try to avoid arguments later; and because different tasks are different, so there might not be a “blanket” approach that can be used across the board
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We will comment async on outstanding questions in the "AI Ethics WG: money questions" doc, and return to the discussion in a future meeting
[rationale] because we didn't get through all the issues mentioned in the doc
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
The WG admin team (Colleen, Sucre, Love and Vani) will step in to facilitate strategy-writing teams to reach agreement on distributing pay for the strategy writing tasks
[rationale] as it has become clear that there is some dissatisfaction with the current distributions
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Everyone to continue to comment async in the Money Issues doc, and discuss again in a future meeting [assignee] All Members [due] 16 September 2024 [status] todo
[action] Admin team (Love,. Sucre, Colleen, Vani) will amend the costings for proposed Q3 interviewing to bring it within budget, and will post a suggestion in Discord for poeple to agree or disagree [assignee] CallyFromAuron, Sucre n Spice, LadyTempestt, CollyPride [due] 26 August 2024 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: deadlines, Tasks, Task Assignment, flexibility, policies, Asynchronous follow-up, drafting strategy documents, strategy documents, interviewing, AGI-24, training, Budget , capability, async, money, payment, pay, fairness, fair
emotions: Pragmatism, Frustration, Collaboration, ideas, uncertainty, confusion, insights
Strategy Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], Effiom [documenter], Ayo, Effiom, Gorgasiagian, YemiSolves, LordKizzy, HoganTuso, Cjfrankie, Photogee, Merryman, Billy, Kenichi, SubZero
Purpose: Strategy Guild Workshop Day Four - Solution Adoption Session
Other media: Link
Working Docs:
Narrative:
INTRODUCTION - The purpose of this meeting is on the final session of the Strategy Guild Q3 workshop and will be focused on report analysis, adoption, and adaptation.
ACTION ITEMS CHECKBOXES FROM THE LAST MEETING - This was led by Ayo, items DONE were closed and others were left OPEN:
Everyone to contribute to the Strategy Guild Working Document [OPEN]
Core members should indicate interest in facilitating the new sheet in the working doc [OPEN]
Effiom to share previous meeting summaries and this meeting summary [DONE]
YemiSolves to document and share the Workshop Session [DONE]
Adopt last Meeting Notes - 12.08.2024 [DONE]
YemiSolves to create and share a sheet for Guilds/WGs rep to add other contributions to aid the report and analysis of the workshop [DONE]
ONBOARD NEW MEMBERS/CORE MEMBER ROLL CALL - Two intending members (Photogee and Cjfrankie) were encouraged to keep attending meetings as they have met all but one of the requirements to become Core Members of the Strategy Guild
Ayo highlighted the importance of active involvement in the Strategy Guild and that people can still show interest in facilitating the working document.
THE OUTBOUND WGs/Gs WORKSHOP SOLUTION ADOPTION SESSION - The session focused on discussing how these solutions could be best deployed and adopted by the different WGs, with various representatives providing insights and perspectives on the proposed strategies.
Highlights and takeaways from the Solution Adoption session:
In-WG/Guild Solutions discussion: Guilds/WGs representatives were advised to take a few minutes to share the solutions from the workshop at their respective meetings. Also, Adoption should be easier, hence the reason for proper representation of WGs during the 4 days of the workshop
Solutions for improving social media engagement and visibility: In a bid to speed up the Substack publication, Writers' WG decided to assign Scribblers to various Guilds/WGs meetings within the program.
Premium tool subscription and the importance of keyword research, drawing insights from the “AI Cryptography” article by Mikasa.
The social media MIXpost automation solution which is in the testing phase at R&D Guild will be used by Video and Writers WGs.
Content Calendar optimization based on the algorithm suggestions on the best time for social media posts.
Solutions roles/tasks and budgeting: Guilds/WGs will decide on this and the Strategy Guild would follow up on the feedback.
Solutions Feedback System for the Strategy Guild: Feedback Template and Form (Open/Monthly/Quarterly), and Tracking Sheet.
Solutions Audit and Improvement Process/Plan for the Strategy Guild
Guilds/WGs have autonomy on whether to adopt these solutions. However, a feedback system will be created to assess the impact of the workshop.
A.O.B - Ayo expressed gratitude to the participants and provided an overview of the plan for the next sessions.
Decision Items:
Participants are to share the solutions from the workshop at their respective meetings
[rationale] Video WG, Writers WG and Marketing Guild representatives who were part of the workshop proposed these solutions
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Continue the conversation on the Strategy Guild Workshop adoption, impact, and feedback system
[rationale] A retrospective look at the outcome of the workshop is important as it would be captured in the Q3 deliverables of the Guild and it would inform on the next steps for Q4
[opposing] None
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
The proposed solution for the X channel in the SNET Discord should be discussed in the Marketing Guild
[rationale] This is part of the feedback that representatives from Marketing Guild are to take back to their meetings
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
There is no individual ownership of the solutions proposed and discussed during this workshop
[rationale] The workshop was a collaborative effort, hence the reason for proper representation of WGs during the 4 days of the workshop
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Continue contribution to the Guild’s working document [status] todo
[action] Core members should indicate interest in facilitating the new sheet in the working doc [status] todo
[action] Effiom to prepare and make meeting notes available [assignee] Effiom [due] 26 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Workshop Documenter YemiSolves to prepare the Final Workshop Report [assignee] YemiSolves [due] 26 August 2024 [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Guild Membership, Workshop Ideation, Core Membership, Adoption, Solutions, Feedback Loops, Social Media Automation, Feedback system, content calendar, Keyword Research
emotions: Brainstorm, Collaborative, insightful, funny, planning, new ideas, interesting, interactive
Tuesday 20th August 2024
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, Olokoji, Advanceameyaw, lord_kizzy, LadyTempestt, Effiom, esewilliams, Onize, CollyPride
Purpose: Weekly GovWG Meeting
Narrative:
The meeting discussed the process and timeline for Q4 budget submission and approval.
We resolved comments in the Q4 context-setting doc, and made a minor change to the timeline. We noted
that we need to ensure Tevo is aware of the proposed dates;
that we need to establish when the list of Core Contributors will be re-calculated, and what the dates for the "opt-in" process for being a Core Contributor will be.
We discussed the context-setting doc's section on valid reasons for objecting, and the idea of asking people not to "nit-pick" small details, but to focus on things that would actually do harm to the Program if they were agreed.
We discussed whether we should say that people who raise objections need to be present at the relevant discussion meetings or not
We discussed how we will keep core contributors engaged and informed through the whole consent process, by sharing short memos that cover which concerns have been addressed so far and which are still outstanding.
We discussed the wording for Guillermo's two infographics: 1) reminding WGs to submit their budgets by 9th Sept and 2) encouraging Core Contributors to take part in the consent process; and agreed that Guillermo and Vani will make final tweaks to the wording as soon as possible
We noted that when the consent process opens, Peter has already said he will contact Core Contributors via DM to encourage them to take part.
We discussed at leangth what should happen if a WG does not submit their budget in time. We recognised that late submission should be strongly discouraged because it holds the whole process up. In previous Quarters, it has been suggested that a WG that does not submit a budget should have to work on their previous quarter's budget - but this time, this would not be workable since the token price is so much lower than it was for Q3, so most WGs' Q3 budgets would be more than we could afford. There has been a suggestion in the past that a WG who submits late should get no budget - but this is not a good idea, especially not for WGs that are "core" to the Program. So we agreed on late submitters getting a minimal budget, the exact amount to be determined by referencing their previous Quarters' budgets and the token price at the time.
We agreed this idea needs to go out to all WG leads - who are all core contributors, so it could be done via the Core Contributor tag - to check they agree with it.
Decision Items:
We agreed a minor amendment to the timeline for Q4 budget approval - see Q4 Context Setting doc
[rationale] mainly to avoid consent forms needing to be sent out on a Saturday.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that for each iteration of the consent process, we will re-post Guillermo's infographic encouraging core contributors to take part.
[rationale] Because in previous quarters, some people only engaged in the first round of consent
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that for each iteration of the consent process, when we post Guillermo's infographic, we will also post something to highlight the core concerns that have been raised, plus any response from the relevant WGs
[rationale] because it might encourage core contributors to get involved; they might be finding it difficult to sort through the information and view the concerns in the budget calculator spreadsheet
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that we need to document and publicise the process better. First, after each discussion meeting we should put out a memo covering what has been agreed, and which concerns have been addressed/resolved. Second, our archive documentation of discussion meetings needs to specify the concerns raised and the responses that WGs gave.
[rationale] Partly to make it easier for people to see what has been decided without having to read a whole meeting summary, and avoid resolved concerns being raised again in the next consent round. And partly to help with longer-term tracking issues from quarter to quarter. (It has previously been raised, in consent process retrospectives, that we should ensure that concerns raised about a WG in one Quarter are actually addressed in practice in the next Quarter.)
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that the "memo" mentioned above should be either a doc, or a link to the meeting summary in the Archives, and it should be linked in the next iteration of the consent form, so people can see at a glance which concerns have already been addressed. We noted that the Governance WG has budget that could pay a documenter to do this additional task.
[rationale] To make it easier for people to keep track of the whole process, and to avoid concerns being resubmitted when they have already been addressed.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that this meeting thinks that if a WG does not submit their budget in time, they will be removed from the consent process and allocated a minimal budget for Q4, which will be worked out by using the operational element of their previous budgets as a reference (i.e. the budget element for actually running the WG - meetings, facilitation, documentation etc).
[rationale] To avoid issues that have arisen in the past when WGs don't submit in time, where others have had to decide what to submit on their behalf
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Further to the above, we agreed that this idea should be shared in the Ambassador General Discord channel and the Decision-to-be-Made Discord channel to all WG leads using the "Core Contributor" tag (all WG leads are Core Contributors, as far as we know)
[rationale] To check that there are no objections to this approach of those who submit their budget late being removed from the consent process and being allocated a minimal budget
[opposing] There were several caveats but no actual objections
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We decided that it would be best for the context-setting doc to say that it is useful (but not mandatory) for objectors to be present at discussion meetings
[rationale] Mainly because people are not always clear in what they write, so it can help if they are present when it is discussed
[opposing] There was a suggestion that an ideal consent process should be designed so objections can be discussed even if the objector is not present - but we recognised that in practice, in past iterations, it has helped to have the objector present.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that when the time comes to start reminding Core Contributors to take part in the Q4 consent process, it would be useful if all WGs could mention it at the start of their meetings
[rationale] to ensure that the info is shared widely, and reaches people where they are.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Guillermo and Vani and Ese to finalise wording of Guillermo's infographics [assignee] guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron [due] 23 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo and Vani to outline the Q4 consent process and dates at Town Hall later today [assignee] guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron [due] 20 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo, Vani and Ese to send out Guillermo's infographic reminding WGs to submit their Q4 budgets and Q3 quarterly reports [assignee] guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, esewilliams [due] 27 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] All to determine, at the next meeting, when the Core Contributor list will be recalculated, and when the opt-in process will happen [assignee] All Members [due] 27 August 2024 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: consent process, Q4 2024 budgets, Q3 2024 quarterly reports, consent forms, core contributors, deadlines, publicity, community engagement, timeline, Budget , Quarterly Report, minimal budget, late submission
emotions: Friendly, decisive, focused
LatAm Guild
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Guillermo [facilitator], Ines [documenter], Ines [translator], Guillermo, Ines, Martin Rivero, Rous, Thiago
Purpose: To strategize communication, governance, and education plans for the upcoming AI and decentralized governance live streams and discuss collaborations with MetaPool and Algorand.
Meeting video: Link
Transcript: Link
Working Docs:
Agenda item 1 - Agenda Item 1 - AI in Governance and Live Stream Planning - [carry over]
Narrative:
The team discussed finalizing the date for the first live stream on AI in governance, scheduled for September 4, 18:00-19:00 UTC. The stream will cover topics like decentralizing AI nodes on blockchain through projects like HyperCycle and OpenCog Hyperon. They also discussed governance and decision-making systems, including quadratic voting, reputation systems, and decentralized AI ethics. There were additional conversations about hosting an event in Argentina, possibly in partnership with Solana, set for August 29, focusing on relaxed talks, open presentations, and networking opportunities.
Decision Items:
Discuss bringing SingularityNET to Near governance
Action Items:
[action] Guillermo to explore DAO participation and the benefits for MetaPool and SingularityNET [assignee] Guillermo, Martin Rivero [due] 19 August 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Identify if SingularityNET LATAM can access Near Foundation funds through grants or another channel [assignee] Guillermo, Martin Rivero [due] 18 August 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Prepare for the first live stream on September 4 [assignee] Ines [due] 26 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Plan the Argentina event with Solana on August 29 [assignee] Guillermo [due] 25 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Continue designing the decentralized governance topics for discussion [assignee] Guillermo, Ines, Martin Rivero [due] 25 August 2024 [status] todo
Agenda item 2 - Strategic Communications and MetaPool Collaboration - [carry over]
Narrative:
Rous presented MetaPool and its decentralized finance opportunities for collaboration. Martín emphasized the importance of not dividing communication channels by language, as it could weaken engagement. Instead, the team agreed to translate and segment content by day, ensuring broader reach. Algorand was mentioned as a potential partner for collaborations moving forward. Members discuss how to maintain engagement by keeping multi-language content on the same platform
Action Items:
[action] Analyze Allocation for message replication on community channels [assignee] Guillermo, Ines [due] 19 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Organize the event in Brazil with MetaPool, María, and Dani [assignee] Ines [due] 19 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Replicate and translate content across channels [assignee] Ines [due] 25 August 2024 [status] todo
Agenda item 3 - Educational Content Creation - [carry over]
Narrative:
Martín was tasked with writing a blog about a growth event and his role as a SingularityNET Ambassador, describing his experience and observations. The team also discussed generating more educational content for the SingularityNET LATAM Community, particularly FAQs and general crypto information.
Action Items:
[action] Invite participants for the first live stream space on September 4 [assignee] Ines, Martin Rivero [due] 21 August 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Create publications and infographics for the live stream [assignee] Guillermo [due] 26 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Write a blog post about the growth event and Ambassador role [assignee] Martin Rivero [due] 25 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Create FAQ section for the @SNET_Latam Community page [assignee] Martin Rivero, Guillermo [due] 1 September 2024 [status] todo
[action] Complete pending crypto information segment [assignee] Ines [status] todo
Agenda item 4 - Operations Sub-Group - [carry over]
Narrative:
Members discuss task management and assigments for next week and September, draft schedule and potentinal actions. TBD
Action Items:
[action] Creating tasks on DeWork for Guild members [assignee] Guillermo [due] 26 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Operations tasks on regards of live stream plans [assignee] Guillernmo, Martin Rivero [due] 26 August 2024 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Budget, Roles, Schedule, Content Calendar, Long Term Vision, Educational Content, Strategic Communications, Live Stream, Team Work, Multi-language Communication
emotions: Collaborative, Reflective, Task-focused, Team Work, engaging, Strategic
other:
Wednesday 21st August 2024
Research and Development Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: lordkizzy [facilitator], lord kizzy [documenter], AJ, Advanceameyaw, Clement Umoh, lord kizzy, Seun Tunde, Ubiodee, Yemi Solves
Purpose: R&D Updates and Discussions
Working Docs:
Agenda Items:
Welcoming new Members and Introduction
Review of last meeting summary Action Items
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT
NEW OPERATIONS SYSTEM GOING FORWARD: R&D Proposal Template
Discussion Points:
Review of last meeting summary Action Items: Lordkizzy went through the action items for the previous meeting
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: AJ and Advanceameyaw gave the updates on the Collaboration Skill Database; they presented the work done so far visually, and requested feedback on whether it would be suitable to add existing data to the database. Lordkizzy made some clarity on the scope of the project and suggested that the existing data gets differentiated from the new data. AJ and Advanceameyaw requested two more weeks from the inital deadline for development and testing.
R&D Guild Proposal Template: Lord kizzy presented the final draft of the proposal template to the group for feedback. Here is the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14cl-X09nWY2RIDKcPWZv14-JbQqohovggJ0HOp6DKXk/edit He also highlighted the timeline for this process: New proposal submission applications, August 27th - September 3rd. Review process, September 4th - 10th. Community voting, September 11th - 18th
Decision Items:
We have decided to proceed with the transition from the development of the Social Media Automation tool to an Open Source platform called MixPost
[rationale] a poll was conducted to approve this decision and a final report will be presented at the end of the Quarter.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Guillermo to disburse funds to Duke (the final part of his project's allocation) and Rojo (for Licenscing and hosting) [assignee] Guillermo [due] 21 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Guillermo and Lord kizzy to present the final draft for the new Operations System [assignee] Guillermo, lord kizzy [due] 21 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Lordkizzy to meet up with Duke as regards to the presentation of the Ideation Project on Impact of Lingual Differences [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 28 August 2024 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Guilds, Tool Development, AI tooling, contributors, Operations, Deliverables, Presentation, skills database, Database, lingual differences, language, MixPost, timeline, proposal, proposal template, voting, community voting, social media automation,
emotions: Casual, Collaborative, speedy , Welcoming, Thoughtful, Organised
Knowledge Base Workgroup
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Gorga Siagian [facilitator], Effiom [documenter], advanceameyaw, effiom, Martin Soki, Yemi Solves, GorgaSeagian
Purpose: Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Working Docs:
Agenda item 1 - Introductions, Onboarding, and WG Updates - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Onboarding using infographic
Update on WG activities
Highlights of 21.08.2024 meeting agenda
Agenda item 2 - Reviewing Strategy Guild Items for GitBook - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Strategy Guild Items: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVN-9yivE=/?moveToWidget=3458764574353771652&cot=14
7 Strategy Guild items to be selected for Gitbook
The new vs the old Strategy Guild
Are these items from the old or new Strategy Guild?
Where can we find the correct link to an item?
Decision Items:
ADD "Copy of SingularityNet Ambassador Program Code of Conduct Copy v2 9/6/23 edited - Google Doc" to Gitbook
[rationale] This item was considered a valuable asset for Gitbook
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
ADD "Grassroots Ethics of the SNET Ambassador Program - Google Doc" to Gitbook
[rationale] This item was considered a valuable asset for Gitbook
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
ADD "CONFLICT RESOLUTION FOR SINGULARITY NET AMBASSADORS - Google Doc" to Gitbook
[rationale] This item was considered a valuable asset for Gitbook
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
"Roles/levels in the Ambassador Program v0.1" is valid for Gitbook but the asset link is broken
[rationale] A valid item to be considered if valid link is made available. NOTE: link has been found by the archivist and added in Working Docs
[opposing] None
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
3 Strategy Guild items were not selected as Gitbook assets
[rationale] These items were not considered as valuable assets for Gitbook
[opposing] None
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Don't add new items till we have reviewed and created a new onboarding session for async tasks
[rationale] A new onboarding process for async organising is currently being worked on
[opposing] None
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Find and update the correct link for "Roles/levels in the Ambassador Program v0.1 - Google Doc" [assignee] Tevo [status] done
Agenda item 3 - Current approach to organizing and reviewing items - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
WG Resource Planning Process
Overview of Organizing Items Miro Board
How to become an organizer in Knowledge Base WG
Decision Items:
We did not select a Strategy Guild item to organize collectively in meeting
[rationale] We could not find a Strategy Guild item on the Organizing Resources board
[opposing] None
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Ambassador GitBook, Miro Board, Strategy Guild, Valid Items, Onboarding, assets, code of conduct, grassroots ethics, conflict resolution, roles and levels, old Strategy Guild, new Strategy Guild
emotions: Educative, informative, Collaborative, interesting
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], kateri, osmium, malik, Slate, GorgaSiagian, Clement Umoh, King David, Billy, Yemi Solves, Merryman, WaKa, esewilliams, martinsoki
Purpose: Regular meeting of Education Guild. This meeting covered: CCCP Quizzes Update - Malik's NFT Presentation for Certification Program - Quarterly Report Assignment - Slate Budget Request Template - Ese's presentation on Ai for beginners
Working Docs:
[AI for Beginners Project Blueprint] (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k41rkHr21lrskZnhPx9JRpxCfhYFIHcMe4hch2ToXyE/edit?usp=sharing)
In this meeting we discussed:
CCCP Quizzes Update
Malik's NFT Presentation for Certification Program
Quarterly Report Assignment
Slate Budget Request Template
Ese's presentation on Ai for beginners
Osmium chatbot UI
Discussion Points:
Slate started the meeting welcoming everybody
Then Slate shared that all the quizzes for CCCP have finally been completed and all of the last quizzes are in review
Then Malik shared the NFT he created for the certification program , and everybody really liked it
Slate discussed and shared the budget request template for all projects to add on to their task, so they can be carried out effectively in the next quarter
Osmium showcased the UI he created for the chatbot he is developing
Ese presented the updated blueprint for AI for Beginners. There were some discussions regarding the timing of the videos which is going to be around 2-5 min
WaKa shared some insights from the past to the present of video making and how they improved
Slate assigned quarterly report creation to clement and yemisolves, and ended the meeting
Decision Items:
5 min long videos for Ai for beginners which may vary
[rationale] most of the group agreed
[opposing] Nil
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Quarterly report and Budget Request Reporting till next week
[rationale] nil
[opposing] nil
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Gorga and Osmium to shift all the quizzes from Google docs to Google forms
[rationale] nil
[opposing] nil
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Presentation, Task Assignment, CCCP, video length
emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.
Thursday 22nd August 2024
African Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Duke [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], Clement Umoh, Advanceameyaw, Cjfrankie, SucrenSpice, Yemi Solves, Eric Davies, Martin Soki, Photogee, Duke, Kateri, lord kizzy, LadyTempestt, daniel effiom, Tert, Ngala Daryl, Judith Soulamite
Purpose: The African Guild weekly meeting and progress updates.
Working Docs:
Narrative:
The meeting started with Duke welcoming everyone, then he shared the meeting agenda. Duke, Lady Tempestt, Yemi Solves, Lord Kizzy, Emmanuel, Ngala, and Tert extended their greetings in their native languages.
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
AI Ethics EXPO: Duke mentioned that during the last AI Ethics WG meeting, we presented our update and to furthermore reach out to the prospective speakers we expect from them. He stated that we are to produce two speakers (Ubio Obu, who is part of the Ambassador program and is an AI and blockchain expert, and John Obidi, who is not in the program but is one of our partners for our Deep Funding proposal (he is the founder of Head Start Africa which is one of our industry partners for our Deep Funding proposal that has been funded). Duke also stated that we are expecting to have Leeloo Rose (speaking on AI Ethics) and either Haley Lowy or Esther Galfalvi (speaking on AI Governance) from the GEI (Global AI Ethics Initiative).
Budget reduction for Q3: Due to the token merger and the drastic drop in AGIX, we need to reduce our budget. Duke proposed the idea of taking a break to save funds, while Kateri suggested updating our weekly meetings to a biweekly schedule. Lady Tempestt recommended pushing some items from this quarter to the next, and Lord Kizzy echoed Kateri's suggestion but proposed biweekly meetings only for this quarter. Duke initiated the WG budget discussion, but due to time constraints, he recommended scheduling another call focused entirely on budgeting.
Do we need a core contributor role/tag? Duke clarified what a core contributor role/tag was, he explained that any person who is a core contributor in the Guild will more naturally have a higher stake in the affairs of the African Guild. He went ahead and said it could be a core contributor role or just any other role within the Guild that we can use. Lady Tempestt said that we need to firstly describe the role in order for us to get the right tags for the role. Duke further clarified that he values people who are more active in terms of presence and contribution.
Documentation circle and operation: Clement presented the documentation roster and explained it. He further clarified that the names listed are not fixed and will be updated regularly. Several suggestions were made regarding the core team, review team, and documentation circle.
Decision Items:
We decided to make our meeting Biweekly.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We decided to merge the review circle and focus group as part of the responsibilities of the core team.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: AI Ethics EXPO, Q3 budget, Documentation Roster, Treasury, Core team, review team, tags, core contributor, roles, budget cuts
emotions: informative, insightful, long
other: We congratulated Duke on his wedding.
Friday 23rd August 2024
Video Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Hogantuso [documenter], hogantuso, malik, killy, Zalfred, lord kizzy, King Daniel, oep, AndrewBen, Slate, Advanceameyaw, SubZero, Gorga Siagian
Purpose: Weekly updates
Discussion Points:
Updates on task management: Zalfred gave the update for task management for the week: he had created two tasks within the week and there was a delay in the editing of the town hall videos since the recording was uploaded late
Updates from Social Media Management: OEP gave the updates for the week, he indicated that he received the access to our socials accounts a bit late
Updates from Lordkizzy: Lordkizzy gave the updates from the governance call. He suggested that the workgroup requests the 10% contingency from Treasury due to the budget deficiencies but some members suggested that we should wait till we really need it. He also spoke on members not doing the task efficiently and requested an improvement going forward.
Updates on Zealy: Devon presented the report on the current sprint and we all ideated on how to improve the engagements going forward. We also set out KPIs for the next sprint (25 quests a month rationally shared across all social media platforms). Lord kizzy also suggested that we increase our focus more on engagements by using a 2-screenshot submission method.
Updates from the review team: Lordkizzy indicated that 3 short videos are currently being reviewed by the review team, and feedback has been sent to the editors
There was a presentation by Gamers Guild on the Video WG Department Creation by Lordkizzy and Gorga, which was approved by the workgroup members and got some positive feedback.
Decision Items:
We decided to close applications for new members joining the WG.
[rationale] The video WG had a poll on this and majority of the members were in favour of closing applications
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Workgroup members to ideate on possible human animation platforms [assignee] All Members [due] 6 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] The Town Hall summary edit was assigned to Killy for the month [assignee] killy [due] 13 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] The Town Hall edit was assigned to AndrewBen for the month [assignee] AndrewBen [due] 13 September 2024 [status] todo
[action] Task management was assigned to Zalfred for the month [assignee] Zalfred [due] 13 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Social media management was assigned to OEP for the month [assignee] oep [due] 13 September 2024 [status] todo
[action] Weekly Facilitation was assigned to Slate for the month [assignee] Slate [due] 13 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Documentation was assigned to Tuso for the month [assignee] hogantuso [due] 13 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Lordkizzy to make futher enquires on the presented animation platforms [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 30 August 2024 [status] in progress
[action] Lordkizzy and Malik are the reviewers for the month [assignee] lord kizzy, Malik. [due] 13 September 2024 [status] in progress
[action] LordKizzy to have a call with Kenichi to discuss the editoral access and KPIs for the Zealy platform [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 30 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Lord kizzy to have a call with malik to revamp the engagement sheet [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 30 August 2024 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy and Rojo to present the Q4 Budget proposal and Q3 Budget report [assignee] lord kizzy, Rojo [due] 30 August 2024 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Weekly updates, Budget Reduction, Budget fitting, Zealy Updates, sprint, Rewards, Video production, Town Hall, Town Hall videos, Task Assignment, Contingency, Tasks format, Zealy KPIs, review team, Gamers Guild, Roblox
emotions: Casual, productive, Organised, Thoughtful, warm, new ideas, decisive, Friendly
Marketing Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], Photogee [documenter], Ayo, Photogee, Aguboss, Cjfrankie, Eric Davies, esewilliams, GorgaSeagian, Hamzat_iii, Kareem, Kateri, Olokoji, Malik., lord kizzy, SubZero, Yemi Solves
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting.
Discussion Points:
There is going to be a monthly assessment that entails the proof of work of all core members and also taskforce.
Decision Items:
Notion payment decision is yet to be reached due to some members’ difference in opinion.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Members should fill out the form for the Notion payment decision. [status] in progress
[action] Lord Kizzy to draft the Q3 quarterly report [status] done
[action] Kenichi to add Photogee to the comms channel. [status] done
[action] Lord Kizzy to create a taskforce interest document. [assignee] lordkizzy [status] done
[action] Photogee to reach out to all marketing guild core teams for monthly report. [assignee] Photogee [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Tool Development, Rewards, Role Proposal Requirements, workgroup updates, Q3 quarterly report, Notion, task force, proof of work
emotions: Friendly, Casual, Collaborative, contributive, warm, exploratory
Writers Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Cjfrankie [facilitator], LadyTempestt [documenter], Kenichi, Mikasa, cjfrankie, LadyTempestt, Gorga Siagian, Advanceameyaw, King David, Emmanuel Isaac, Evelyn Robert, Nebula1224, AJ, merryman, inesgav, Nengi
Purpose: Weekly meeting of the writers workgroup.
Working Docs:
Narrative:
The meeting kicked off with Kenichi welcoming everyone to the meeting, which was facilitated by CJ Frankie. We started by checking the action items from the last meeting. Kenichi shared updates on the Zealy sprint: the current sprint has ended and the next one will start by next week. CJ Frankie raised security issues with duplicated and banned accounts on Zealy.
CJ Frankie and Mikasa apologized for the delay in reviewing Zealy quests from the last sprint.
Town Hall Updates on 27th Aug will cover: ✅Scribblers signposting to WGs they are not familiar with to aid monthly substack. ✅ Zealy sprints update.
Test results: Eve passed, and there are no concluded results on other pupils.
SEO and Keyword Research: Should we make use of it to enhance our articles' reach? There are free and paid tools available. CJ Frankie suggested using keyword research on what is currently trending. MerryMan suggested incorporating words or media people search for into our articles and internal linking. Ines suggested we define what SEO is all about, and try different ways of writing articles such as “how to" articles or articles with shorter lengths. Gorga said that with trending articles we have to make topics to educate and make people curious, such as education on how AI works in science and math and related to tutorial topics about AI.
Decision Items:
We agreed to have Scribblers and Scribes aggregate the WWG tests whenever there is one and give results without having to wait for Kenichi to do so.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Gorga to give Town Hall updates on 27th August 2024 [assignee] GorgaSeagian [due] 27 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Kenichi to give us an update on the WG’s Q3 report and Q4 budget proposal next week. [assignee] Kenichi [due] 30 August 2024 [status] done
[action] CJ Frankie to share monthly town hall updates in the WG’s channel today. [assignee] Cjfrankie [due] 27 August 2024 [status] done
[action] Kenichi to share the document on the signposting of scribblers/scribes to WGs and Guilds in the channel for everyone to check out. [assignee] Kenichi [due] 30 August 2024 [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Workshop, TH Update, Zealy, WWG Test, SEO, Keywords research
emotions: contributive, calm, insightful
Last updated