Week 50

Mon 9th Dec - Sun 15th Dec 2024

Monday 9th December 2024

AI Ethics WG

• Type of meeting: Monthly

• Present: CollyPride [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], CollyPride, CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, PeterE, EstherG, AshleyDawn, Mikasa, advanceameyaw, Gorga Siagian, osmium

• Purpose: One-off meeting, called by AI Ethics WG, to discuss Ambassador Program attendance at events and conferences

• Working Docs:

  • 2025 AI Conventions

  • 2025 AI Conventions Discussion Agenda _ 12092024

Narrative:

We discussed:

1. What are we trying to achieve by attending conferences? And what should we be doing there?

2. How does it get funded?

3. What kinds of events should we prioritise? (particular topics? virtual or IRL?)

4. How should we make the decision on who goes where?

5. How do we track the outcomes?

On 1, we came up with a list of key aims (see "Decisions" below), and noted that these should influence what kinds of events we attend. We also discussed possible outputs: including the idea of short, vox-pop type videos on core questions about AI (similar to what was done in Panama). We noted that these could be shared on social media, and could help publicise sNET's ideas. We noted that, due to the lack of a robust consent process, such videos wouldn't be admissible as primary source material for BeGIN's research; but perhaps, if shared on social media, they could constitute secondary source material on people's opnions on AI-related questions.

On 2,

• Esther noted that depending on the type of event, the Foundation might be willing to fund conference attendance sometimes

• We discussed whether and when Ambassador Program reserves should be used (see "decisions" below

• we suggested that perhaps there should be a cap/maximum per person that we should spend.

• other suggestions on funding were that "plus-1"s shouldn’t be covered, nor should staying longer than the length of the conference, and if someone wants to return to a different airport than they departed from, this should only be permitted up to original costs of one-way.

On 3 and 4, we didn't decide definitely what types of event are most important; but suggestions included

• a) Events that discuss decentralization, particularly in AI, but also in web3 communities as a whole

• b) Events that discuss AI and AGI

• c) Events that discuss AI ethics issues (rather than events about business, or trade shows, etc)

• d) Virtual events, for "carbon footprint" and cost reasons;

• e) Twitter spaces and similar, as well as major conferences

• f) Events in places where we have a lot of people - for example, West Africa - or in places that we have regional focus (Latin America, Africa)

• g) Selection of who attends should be at least partly based on who is nearby, to minimise travel costs - but that this would have to be coupled with looking for events in places where we have a lot of people.

• h) We raised the issue of whether we could push for BGI-25 to be in an African country; but the location has already been almost selected for this year (still confidential), so perhaps we could lobby for an African location in 2026.

On 5, we noted that we should track results based on the specific event; we should set specific objectives based on our list of core reasons to attend (see "decisions" below); but we might want to steer away from rigidly quantitative KPIs, and focus more on an assessment of meaningful outcomes (For examplerather than counting how many people we speak to, attendees should try to give an honest assessment of how useful they thought it was). We noted that attendees might have a tendency to exaggerate the value of attending; and we discussed the need to make it possible to say "it wasn't useful" if it wasn't, and capture information from attendees on how we could make it better. We discussed asking attendees to write up a short summary evaluation of their attendance at an event (what went well, less well, what they learnt, how we can learn from any failures) which could be added to the Archives and referred to ahead of the next event. We agreed that the question of tracking results needs further discussion.

We noted that different WGs might take a lead on different aspects of planning, depending on the nature of an event. We also mentioned the issue of how to decide who is able to (for example) represent the Ambassador Program at an event, and the possibility of mentorship to help people do this. (Twitter spaces could be a way to develop this.)

Decision Items:

• Agreed the main things we are trying to achieve will vary according to the details of the event; and are (in no particular order):

  1. Funnelling developers to DF (in collab with DF Developer Outreach Circle, ideally)

  2. Doing research interviewing for BeGIN Nexus

  3. Regional engagement (might mean we should prioritise events in Latin America and Africa?)

  4. Presenting on the stage about sNET

  5. Shouting about sNET's mission and vision!

  6. [rationale] This list of objectives might change in the longer term, but for now it's the main things we can do effectively

  7. [opposing] Not an opposing argument, but we noted that this list should influence what kinds of events we choose to attend.

  8. [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• RE how to fund event attendance, we agreed that a small "task force" (Peter, Guillermo, Vasu and Vani) will meet to ideate on when and in what circumstances we would use Ambassador Program reserves for conference attendance, and what process we should use to decide. We agreed that attending this meeting will be funded from the Governance WG budget.

  • [rationale] We agreed this will not be a decision-making group, but purely ideation, to put forward suggestions for others to comment on and develop (so, in effect, a consultative decision-making process). Funded from Governance because it is largely a Governance issue.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• Types of events - we agreed that we should have a presence at core events organised by sNET itself, such as BGI-24 - but we should aim to attend at least one "non-sNET" event in 2025 - and that perhaps it should be something with a more "decelerationist" perspective.

  • [rationale] To ensure we're not only reaching those who are already on board with sNET's perspective.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• We agreed that regardless of the type of event, we need to plan ahead more.

  • [rationale] e.g. to enable people to get visas; and to enable us to budget and prioritise across the whole year.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• We agreed that some kind of mentorship or shadowing process would be useful to help people feel able to represent sNET at events both virtual and IRL; we need to think further on how to do this and how to fund it.

  • [rationale] to build people's confidence that they know what to say, what issues to emphasise, how to respond to likely questions, etc.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

• [action] Small "task force" to meet later this week, and ideate on how to decide whether Ambassador reserves should be used to fund attendance at a conference [assignee] PeterE, osmium, guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron [due] 13 December 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: sNET mission and vision, inclusion, Africa, LatAm, carbon footprint, diversifying, SingularityNET Foundation, Foundation, Ambassador Program reserves, reserves, BeGIN, fishbowl interviews, interviewing, research, qualitative research, Ethics, Decentralization, AI ethics, consultative decision-making, mentorship

• emotions: calm, Organised, ideas, exploratory

Tuesday 10th December 2024

Governance Workgroup

• Type of meeting: Weekly

• Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, CollyPride, AshleyDawn, Sucre n Spice, FroshFX

• Purpose: Weekly GovWG Meeting

• Working Docs:

  • Governance calls, rolling agenda

Narrative:

Most of the meeting was taken up with reviewing the topics still on the rolling agenda, and deciding what to cover in January. Our agreed agenda is:

• Tuesday January 7th - Why did those who did not take part, not take part? Results of Peter DMing non participants. And: Does the Foundation/the decision makers fully know what the Ambassador Program does? How to make them aware? Among others: End of year report

• Thurs 9th Jan: Compulsory participation in governance - yes or no (for individual Core Contributors) (for WGs)? Also - penalties for WGs for not taking part in governance, yes/no?

• Tues 14th Jan: Retrospective on Q1 2025 process

• Thurs 16th Jan: WG budget cap - processes around it, how to change your cap?

• Tues 21st Jan: WG autonomy/ New WGs?/Outputs. This covers: Process for starting new WGs? And merging WGs??? how do we determine which WGs are producing “valuable” outputs - or do we? CAN there be an objective standard on this, or is it a matter of opinion? WG autonomy as a principle? (this links to the above, and to validity of objections). Increasing numbers vs, non-increasing Program budget People’s capability and whether/how we assess it / Should WGs train people? (already started discussion, see Governance WorkGroup Session 30th July 2024)

• Thurs 23rd Jan: As above, continued

• Tues 28th Jan: Self nomination to Core Contrib status - yes or no?- (was briefly discussed on 21st Nov 2024, but no consensus, so discuss again at a later date.), Must a Core Contributor have a wallet - yes or no? and Is everyone happy with Core Contributor criteria?

• Thurs 30th Jan: Anonymity in the decisionmaking process - yes or no??

February: Looking at other decisionmaking processes besides consent - we said that we would do this in Q1, but will do it if it is agreed that we still want to. Could do it just as education rather than with a view to changing our process

Discussion Points:

• Agenda items for January

• Differentiating Tues and Thurs meetings

• Retrospective session on the Q1 2025 budget decision

• Why some core contributors don't take part in the consent process

• WG Sync call

Decision Items:

• We agreed that our first meeting back after Christmas will be Tues 7th Jan

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We will run a retrospective session on the Q1 consent process on 14th Jan

  • [rationale] didn't want it to be too early in the new year, to ensure everyone is back

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We decided agenda topics for January - see rolling agenda doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t39dwlwLYYB_1z_5szq1rnOH7mVTHe8Tmwv0R6ELOyE/edit?usp=sharing

  • [rationale] mainly to ensure that topics we identified during Q4 2024 but haven't yet covered, will be covered; and to ensure that topics follow on from each other in a reasonable way

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We agreed that we will differentiate Tues and Thurs meetings more clearly next year: Tues is morte about the decision-making processes, and (after January, when we already have some topics we need to cover) Thurs is for open topics suggested by people in the Agenda doc.

  • [rationale] mainly to ensure that we do have space for topics that come up ad-hoc

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We agreed that we will do more to encourage people to add topics to the rolling agenda:

1. we will mention it more often at Town Hall

2. we will post in the Governance Discord channel on a Monday, to say what the Tuesday meeting topic is, and to invite topics for Thursday

• [rationale] To try to ensure that Thurs meetings are more responsive and open

• [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We agreed that Peter will DM any Core Contributors who did not take part in the budget consent process this time, to ask if they would be prepared to say why not. Any responses can then be shared and discussed in our first meeting in January.

  • [rationale] Because last time this was done, we did get useful replies that helped us tweak the consent process to be more welcoming

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• We decided to hold a December WG Sync call this Thurs, 12th Dec

  • [rationale] Because we did not schedule a call for November, so it will be a long time to wait till Jan if we do not have one this month - and any later in Dec, people will probably be on holiday

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

• [action] Peter to DM those who didnt take part to ask why they didn't, and if they have any feedback on the process. [assignee] PeterE [due] 20 December 2024 [status] todo

• [action] Peter to start a document where WGs can add suggested material for an End Of Year Report [assignee] PeterE [due] 12 December 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: participation, consent process, core contributors, agenda creation, inclusion, Workgroup sync call, holidays, Christmas, retrospective, Q1 2025 budget decision, workgroup autonomy, budget caps

• emotions: quiet, focused

Thursday 12th December 2024

Governance Workgroup

• Type of meeting: Monthly

• Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, CollyPride, AshleyDawn, Sucre n Spice, LadyTempestt, Duke, osmium, Effiom, Gorga Siagian, CJFrankie

• Purpose: Monthly WG Sync call: aiming to support inter-WG collaboration

• Working Docs:

  • WG Syncing Call: rolling agenda

  • Form for general feedback on the Program

  • form for feedback on individual WGs

Narrative:

The meeting had a slow start, with only a few people in the call at the beginning; but eventually was quite well attended.

End-Of-Year Feedback We agreed to send out a Google Form to all workgroups, asking what they think the content of these WG Sync calls should be in future. Questions:

1. Did you attend any of the WG Sync calls in 2024? Why/why not?

2. What type of topics would you ideally discuss during this monthly WG Syncing call? Options:

• Sharing best practices

• Collaborative efforts/shared initiatives that all WGs could take part in

• Tooling

• Resolving conflicts between WGs

• Resolving conflicts between individuals

• Discussing any issues or problems with the Program as a whole

• Addressing any responses to the standing Ambassador Program feedback forms

• Other

1. Which topics do you think should NOT be part of the WG Syncing call, but addressed elsewhere?

Existing Ambassador Program feedback forms We noted that there are 2 existing feedback forms - one on the Program as a whole https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSee0oIRpKd2I9tlqt_-QxQMK_wdZNHlmM9BqG61jWy2W8QhWw/viewform, and one for specific WGs https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSckE_kso56kdeJfYcfEezAzKJzcTqFJ6Ej9yySalpMN7SL1uw/viewform. We suggested that we should check to see if they are still useful and worded in a way that is meaningful; if so, they should be monitored; and that the WG Sync call could be a good place for any issues raised to be discussed.

WG Sync rolling agenda We noted that there is a rolling agenda doc for these meetings, but it isn't getting used much; perhaps we need to publicise it more, e.g. in Town Halls and in Discord.

Ambassador Program Reserves We had a discussion about the Ambassador Program's financial reserves, and what they might be spent on. Peter confirmed that the Program itself does have a large reserve, which is separate from the reserves of individual WGs. We noted that there was a meeting earlier this week https://snet-ambassadors.gitbook.io/singularitynet-archive/timeline/2024/december-2024/week-50#ai-ethics-wg to discuss the issues around the Ambassador Program attending events, which touched on whether event attendance should be paid for by using reserves; and a "task group" is going to meet on Friday to discuss this specifically; but there are likely other things that people might want reserves to be spent on. A quick brainstorm suggested the following: - Resurrect the "New ideas" budget? - Training, skillsharing, mentorship - including coaching e.g. for presenting at events and Twitter spaces? and pairing ambassadors with experts, offer one on one coaching sessions? - Resurrect the podcast? Or move more towards X spaces instead? - Research/interviewing people about AI-related topics? - Organising our own events,as well as attending those organised by others? - Make a commercial? We agreed that these and other ideas will need to be discussed further.

Discussion Points:

• End-of-year feedback / Getting input from all WGs on how these calls should be in future

• Existing Ambassador Program feedback forms

• WG Sync rolling agenda and how to publicise it

• Ambassador Program Reserves and how to spend them

Decision Items:

• We will send out a Google Form to all workgroups, asking what they think the content of these WG Sync calls should be in future

  • [rationale] becaue not all WGs attend these meetings and it would be useful to know if there are needs that are not being met

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• We will find out whether anyone is monitoring the 2 existing feedback forms, and whether there have been any replies

  • [rationale] because it has been a while since they were created

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• We will share and publicise the rolling Agenda more widely more, e.g. in Town Halls and in Discord.

  • [rationale] Not everyone is aware of it, and it would be good to encourage WGs to shape the agenda more

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

• [action] Peter will create a Googleform for WGs to give feedback on the WG Sync calls, and what kinds of things they should cover in future [assignee] PeterE [due] 20 December 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: WG Sync Call content, Reserves, Budget , events, retrospective, Google Form, feedback, mentorship, skillsharing, podcasts

• emotions: interesting, participatory, slow start, Discursive