Week 49

Mon 2nd Dec - Sun 8th Dec 2024

Thursday 5th December 2024

Governance Workgroup

• Type of meeting: Weekly

• Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Duke, LordKizzy, Sucre n Spice, AshleyDawn, CollyPride

• Purpose: Weekly Open Governance session

• Working Docs:

  • Governance calls, rolling agenda

  • Ambassador Program Budget Planner

  • A.I Sandbox/Think-tank Q4 Report

  • Q1 Budget Consent Process - objections

Narrative:

AI Sandbox/Think-Tank is the only remaining Workgroup with unresolved objections to their budget.

We discussed the objections, and the responses that the workgroup has made in this doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RsIiorAun9Hkn9Dq26TMq1J5M7vkIPHHCuRnjVrqTk0/edit?usp=sharing.

The objectors were not present in the meeting, so the objections were discussed based on the information given in the consent forms. We noted that if those who object are not present, this means they must accept that the decision will be made by those who do attend.

Key points raised:

• the comment (not an objection) about the group's GitHub Board not being under the Ambassador Program github organisation: accepted as a valid question, and the group will consider moving it; but as it's not an objection as such, it doesn't affect the budget decision.

• the meeting could not see any similarity between what AI Sandbox does, and what R&D does, so could not understand the objection that the two groups are doing the same thing.

• AI Sandbox's work is a form of community engagement and community contribution, so the objection that there is a lack of these things is inaccurate.

• several of the objections seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what the group is trying to do - for example, it doesn't aim to focus on assessing tools built by the community, but on tools (often commercial tools) that might be used by the community.

• To the objection that AI developers and specialists should be invited to be involved in Sandbox sessions, LordKizzy (speaking on behalf of the workgroup) noted that although this would be good, it could incur costs beyond the group's budget. However, Peter offered to ask around at the Foundation to see if there are people who would be prepared to get involved for no cost.

The meeting also noted that several of the comments are not really objections, but suggestions. Since no specific harm was identified, and no solid reason not to approve the budget was given, these points are not valid as objections. The person suggesting these things should progress them, if they want to do so, by joining the workgroup and working on the issues they have raised.

Overall, the meeting agreed that the points raised have been sufficiently answered, so the group's budget has passed.

Discussion Points:

• Reaching agreement on AI Sandbox/Think Tank's Q1 2025 budget.

Decision Items:

• AI Sandbox/Think Tank's budget has passed

  • [rationale] Because the objections raised in the consent form are either not valid as objections, or have been adequately answered by the workgroup.

  • [opposing] None

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

• [action] Peter to ask around at the Foundation for specialists and developers who might be able to join Sandbox sessions, to fulfil the suggestion that "Absence of AI specialists, AGI developers, or credible panelists reduces the sandbox’s value". [assignee] PeterE [due] 14 January 2025 [status] todo

• [action] LordKizzy to look into the possibility of moving the group’s GitHub Board to the Ambassador Program github organisation [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 14 January 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: Decision Making Process, consent decision making, Q1 2025 budget, Q4 2024 quarterly report, AI Sandbox/Think Tank, validity of objections, experts, AI developers, SingularityNET Foundation, R&D guild, github board

• emotions: decisive, focused, thorough, calm