Week 2

Mon 8th Jan - Sun 14th Jan 2024

Monday 8th January 2024

Education Workgroup

No Summary Given

Tuesday 9th January 2024

Ambassador Town Hall

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Peter [facilitator], Vanessa [documenter], Tevo, Vanessa, Peter, Curtis, Guillermo, Sharon, Ian, Judith, Rojo

  • Town Hall Number: 80

Timestamped video:

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 Intro 00:19 Agenda 00:53 What The Ambassador Program Is All About 01:13 Interested In Joining? 01:31 Introduction To Pre-event Challenges 14:07 Would Be Great To Have Ambassadors On The Ground At Bgi 2024 Event In Panama 16:03 Shout-out To Supervisory Council 18:13 Roles/levels In The Ambassador Program V0.1 43:47 Policy Implications And Budget Approval

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: BGI 2024 summit, Quarter 1 2024 WorkGroup budgets, roles and levels, Supervisory Council, Ambassador role definition, what data to capture to assign ambassador role, DeepFunding

  • emotions: interesting, informative

Wednesday 10th January 2024

Knowledge Base WorkGroup

Present:

Tevo, Andre, Peter, Sharon

Purpose:

Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook

Meeting notes:

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM4tvNgs=/?moveToWidget=3458764570914407157&cot=10

Meeting Video Summary:

Dework Updates:

https://app.dework.xyz/singularitynet-ambas/process-guild

Agenda

1) New Miro Board

Decision items [decision] We are going to use the new Miro Board and discontinue adding Knowledge Base assets to the Administration Board

2) Knowledge Base WG Proposal Review

Discussion Points Clarifying what is meant by items that the workgroup is working with went over the entire proposal Suggesting introducing a price fluctuation buffer for the entire Ambassador Program Suggestion to include unplanned budget and how it could affect budget fitting

Decision items [decision] A proposal has to include the Quarter 1 budget request separately

3) Review and Analyze Items

Discussion points We worked on Process Guild items We tested Miro Board voting for making an async review and will continue to try it at the next meeting.

Decision items [decision] Minimum Requirements for Proposals - Miroboard will be included in Ambassador GitBook. [decision] Proposal Roadmap - Miroboard will be included in Ambassador GitBook. [decision] Ambassador Program Analysis - Miroboard will be included in Ambassador GitBook. [decision] Facilitating Decision Making - Webpage will be included in Ambassador GitBook.

Action items [action] Continue adding, formatting and analyzing workgroup items to the Miro Board. [action] Archives WG has updated versions of different meeting summary examples. Find the new templates, copy and paste the Discord server tool to other workgroups and guilds once the item is organized

Keywords

Topics Process Guild, Swarm, Decision Making models, proposal, onboarding, facilitating, analysis, roadmap, Ambassador Gitbook, Miro Board

Sources: Knowledge Base WG Proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lb9DwNSzmToyMhl5qZG9QEFipH9ZmlnDNaVU1jYeqFc/edit

New Knowledge Base WG Miro Board https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVN-9yivE=/

New Miro Board Intro Video https://youtu.be/ElkqRd3O0tI

How the meeting felt: The meeting was constructive but we had to skip organizing time due to the proposal review taking more time than expected.

Archives Workgroup

Decision Items:

  • André will check the new issues log for the Meeting Summary tool once a week, and will triage them based on the "urgency" label they have been given

    • [rationale] Easiest way to decide which ones to tackle first

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Meeting issues are not auto-adding to the Issues board - for now, we decided not to fix it, and just do it manually

    • [rationale] It's happening because it's an Organisation project board, not a repo board; and the relevant GitHub action doesn't recognise this - but the obvious fix (to move the Board into the SingularityNET Archive repo) could have knock-on effects that we don't want.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We will do a presentation/discussion at a Town Hall on the Meeting Summary tool - date TBC but possibly 23rd Jan

    • [rationale] In future, full updates from each Workgroup will happen monthly, not weekly, so there will be space for "feature" slots on specific topics in the other weeks

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We decided to pay those who have been testing Meeting Summary templates, but still keep the "Bounties" issue open

    • [rationale] Because we plan to set up further bounties to engage new people

    • [opposing] long term this might not be the best way to manage the issue - a bit muddled and confusing - perhaps eventually each bounty needs its own issue

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We noted that we need to submit our Q1 2024 budget as soon as

    • [rationale] Some WGs have already done so - we are not the last, but we do need to do it sooner than later

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • For "development" work in Q1 2024, André will focus on maintenance and new feratures of the Tool. The other "development" focus will be Ubio's planned initial work with using LLMs for archive searches

    • [rationale] we want the LLM work to be a core focus for the next couple of quarters

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed to introduce the Meeting Summary tool and process to other areas of the ecosystem

    • [rationale] We think it's at a point where it might be interesting or useful to e.g. to spinoffs, Supervisory Council, etc, particularly in terms of how it supports good decisionmaking, tracking decisions, and tracking action items

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We decided that our next report, for Q1 2024, will try to link reporting to our actual budget; but it's too fiddly to do it this time

    • [rationale] Because at the moment, the way our issues connect to our budget is still a little muddled at times Ideally, perhaps each issue should link to only one budget line; but at the moment some issues cross over more then one budget item.

    • [opposing] Maybe a quarterly report should be more narrative/descriptive, and simply a way of showcasing what we've achieved in the Quarter.; perhaps tying it to budget should be more of a footnote

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Actions and decision items from a meeting should appear in the relevant meeting Issue on the board, in the body of the text so it is carried forward to the next meeting.

    • [rationale] Is it poosible for the meeting summary tool to automate this?

    • [opposing] Maybe not a priority, since actions and decisions are recorded via the Tool, but still useful to have them in the meeting issue as well

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • In-depth discussion of contribution models, and why Archives workgroup doesn't track contribution in terms of hours worked, but tasks completed, whereas other WGs track "time spent"

    • [rationale] Archives WG has always been opposed to tracking contribution as "time spent". We track tasks, not time - the task is what matters, not the time it takes a particular person to do it. Focusing on "time" can distort assessments of contribution, force inappropriate assumptions about work and its value, obscure some types of work (e.g. "micro-engagements" too small to be recorded as "time spent", but which mount up over a month) and overvalue other types (e.g. sitting passively in meetings). Currently, we provide a spreadsheet export of our GitHub Issues Board to track contribution, and we don't use Dework. There may be other ways to add our data to the Treasury system via the metadata of a fund request? But we have a diferent philosophy of what constitutes "contribution" than some other workgroups; and the Dework-based, hourly-rate approach doesn't fit it. Maybe different workgroups should each decide what counts as "contribution" for them; not piecemenal "assessment" but a more overall sense of what someone is contributing

    • [opposing] From discussion at Town Hall yesterday (9th Jan): suggestion that all workgroups should use Gimbals and Dework to track hourly rates, in order to distinguish between new people and long-term contributors for the purpose of assigning decision-making rights. Suggestion that tracking tasks would require more admin overhead than tracking hours

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Recognition that whatever immediate solution is found to the "contribution" issue, it should be seen as temporary. Suggestion of ongoing conversations (both within and between workgroups) about what "contribution" is, distinction (if any) between contribution and participation, and different ways to value and track contribution.

    • [rationale] Because the issue should remain a live one, we should explore it more, and should try different solutions

    • [opposing] Concern that while this would be good, it shouldn't delay the process of opening up the ambassador role to more people and assessing who is a long term contributor. Suggestion of assigning "Long term contributor" role on the basis of both AGIX and Gimbals, so that it cannot be gained simply by attending meetings.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Discussion of how/whether we (Ambassador program overall) value expertise, and what kinds of expertise. No decision reached, but suggestion to discuss it further

    • [rationale] Should we reward higher for more prestigious tasks? or more skilled tasks? or for knowledge/capability? other ways to differentiate?

    • [opposing] Or have a flat rate for all tasks?

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] André to update Meeting Summary tool issues log with issues and feature requests already solved, from Onyeka's feedback notes doc) [assignee] André [due] 24 January 2024 [status] done

  • [action] André to add "Other" to the list of issue types in the Meeting Summary Tool issue log, and a dropdown for which workgroup the issue relates to [assignee] André [due] 24 January 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Vanessa, André and Stephen to firm up the draft Q1 budget and submit it [assignee] André, Stephen, Vanessa [due] 17 January 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Vanessa to finalise the Q4 2023 quarterly report with the amendments suggested in this meeting, and submit it [assignee] Vanessa [due] 17 January 2024 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Issue tracking, issue tracking in meeting summary tool, contribution, contribution models, tracking contribution, the human touch, Budget , Q1 budget, bounties, Dework, GitHub, github board, meeting summary tool, Q1 quarterly report, Quarterly Report, tracking time, tracking tasks, meaning of work, Gimbals, hourly rate, core contributors, the Ambassador role, participation, tooling, your tools shape your process

  • emotions: focused, systematic, in-depth, debate, strong views, controversial, respectful, philosophical

Thursday 11th January 2024

Onboarding WorkGroup

Present:

Peter, Love [Documenter], Sucre [facilitator], Vani, Onyeka, CjFrankie, Slate.

In this meeting, we discussed:

  • Minutes from the last meeting.

  • Action items from the last meeting

  • FAQ in the Getting Started Channel

  • Next Onboarding Session

  • Onboarding Survey analysis

  • Continuous onboarding sessions with other WGs

  • Budget for quarter 1 2024.

  • Rotation for meeting facilitation

  • Our next Ambassador TH Update

Decisions:

[decision] We agreed to have two infographics to use interchangeably while making Twitter posts on Getting Started with the SNET Ambassador program [decision] We agreed to contactthe remaining WGs concerning the continuous onboarding process, so we can write a comprehensive assessment/report. [decision] We agreed to do an onboarding session on the 8th of February 2024 and reassess when to have the next one.

Action items:

[action] Lady Tempest, and Lord Kizzy to create infographics for the Getting Started Twitter thread. [action] Vani to speak to Guillermo about the continuous onboarding process. [action] Peter to speak to Tommy on continuous onboarding. [action] Vani and Sucre to add a link to the doc on creating a wallet in the FAQ part of the Getting Started channel. [action] Vani to share the onboarding survey analysis with everyone in Discord. [action] Vani to prepare slides for the onboarding session. [action] Slate and CjFrankie to create an infographic to announce the onboarding session on the 8th of February. [action] Sucre to do a roster on meeting facilitation for new members. [action] Lady Tempest to create a resource based on our Continuous Onboarding sessions, with ideas for how WGs can support continuous onboarding.

Learning points:

It's best to hear from Treasury Guild before concluding the budget for quarter 1, 2024.

Workgroup updates at Town Hall will now be on the last week of the month only - although there will be a 5 min shout-out space each week for those who have something important to say.

To carry over for the next meeting:

Discussion with Guillermo, and the idea of Onboarding WG meeting with the new R&D Guild, cos there are apparently lots of crossovers in what we are doing.

Keywords:

Topics covered: Continuous Onboarding, Getting Started, Budget, TH Update, Workgroups, Survey, Report, R&D Guild.

Sources: none

How the meeting felt: Funny, Contributive, Thoughtful, Interesting.

Treasury Guild

Present:

Tevo, André, Peter, Guillermo, Vanessa, Rojo, Headelf

Purpose:

Structuring Ambassador rules around payments, tasks and anything related to financial activities

Meeting notes:

https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVN8kUlbw=/?moveToWidget=3458764574789417387&cot=10

Dework Updates:

https://app.dework.xyz/singularitynet-ambas/treasury-guild-87240

Meeting Summary Video:

Full meeting Video:

Agenda

1) Workgroup Proposal Requirements

Discussion points Proposal benefits and downsides Alternative options for smaller proposals quarterly budget expectations and relations Treasury Guild proposal Proposal Templates When were Proposal requirements introduced?

Decision items [decision] Established workgroups don't have to have a workgroup proposal. However many participants feel this will make workgroups inefficient in onboarding and less transparent.

Action items [action] Prepare rules around how requests can be challenged and why.

2) Treasury Budget policy

Discussion points Workgroups should include unplanned budget

Decision items [decision] Establish a 10% fluctuation risk buffer from reserve (quarterly) [decision] Use reserved AGIX for staking

Action items [action] Agree on additional policy rules that affect the unplanned budget separately [action] Create a new wallet for AGIX staking

3) Treasury Manager update

Discussion points We can now import clockify csv files

Keywords

Topics Miro Board, proposals, minimum requirements, transparency, accountability, budgets, bureaucracy, rules

Sources: Workgroup Space Proposal Template https://docs.google.com/document/d/18MpdSrOkzrKNcvlBwhO4VblKMVlWqSKkXd0jQiPm9Vw/edit#heading=h.67650gpeboqe

Program Proposal Template - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZEFCwqVGtByRPlQeM91Grg1_OammV2DFB1xz78ascgY/edit#heading=h.67650gpeboqe

New idea Requirements and requirement comparison matrix - https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVM7pbrQg=/?moveToWidget=3458764562443714715&cot=10

Treasury Guild Q1 Proposal - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-t5dMIadOnIyFc_zCRRcvZ1Zplm2Pg5_KGdrx60TG9w/edit#heading=h.9t5jkakh8028

Research & Development Guild Proposal - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PNd2LwMJSZw38w_G8vAph20pTWmjT62bcYmiEUB0ve8/edit

How the meeting felt: We had quite a tension because there were several opposing opinions on how should improve our Ambassador Program Workgroups and budgeting requirements.

Deep Funding Town Hall

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Judith [facilitator], Vanessa [documenter], Judith, Jan Horlings, Mauro Andreoli, Rojo, Headelf, Rafael Presa, Sharon, Kinga, WaKa, Curtis, Ana Paula Pereira, Ubio, Juan Pablo Barea, Juana Attieh

  • Town Hall Number: 24

Timestamped video:

00:00 Intro And Agenda By Judith Williams. 03:00 Depp Funding Test Round With 150k In Rewards Total By Jan Horlings. 19:51 Purpose And Objetives For 2024 Growth. 34:18 Books: Prosocial, By David Sloan Wilson, Paul W. B. Atkins, And Steven C. Hayes, And Governing The Commons By Elinor Ostrom (core Design Principles) 47:54 Our Circles 51:47 Deep Funding Round Circle By Rojo Kaboti. 56:20 Focus Group Talk. 1:01:30 Deep Funding Marketing Presentation 1:13:00 Roadmap Vision 1:37:41 Free Talk And Close

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Elinor Ostrom, Prosocial, Governing The Commons, David Sloan Wilson, Paul W. B. Atkins, Steven C. Hayes, Circles, sociocracy, Deep Funding test round, Ambassador Program marketing, roadmap, vision, purpose, Objectives, objectives for 2024, planning, future, Deep Funding Focus Group, Focus Group

  • emotions: calm, forward-looking

Friday 12th January 2024

Video WorkGroup

Present:

Rojo [facilitator], Judith [documenter], Lord_kizzy, Malik, DevonHardy, lilycupcake, Slate, Tuso, cardano_class, Iamgorgasiagian, Sf4015

In this meeting we discussed:

The overall purpose of the meeting was to go over the new budget, the new workgroup operations strategy and to assign members to recurring tasks for the next month until they will rotate.

Rojo shared the page on the Ambassador GitBook with the information on all tasks that need to be done on a regular basis in the workgroup. The page outlined what each recurring task is and how that task should be done https://snet-ambassadors.gitbook.io/home/workgroups/video-workgroup

Rojo shared information on usual tasks eg. ‘Make a clip’ or ‘Make a video’: The criteria and guidelines for those tasks are always outlined in Dework.

Discussed the difference and definition of ‘Members’ vs. ‘Senior Members’. Members: Should participate in meetings, votes and clip editing. Senior Members: 1 month as a member with at least 20 hours of tasks completed.

Discussed recurring tasks and voted who will be in charge of which task over the next 4 weeks. Recurring tasks were distributed only among members present in the voice channel. For every task, people indicated their interest, then 1 member was selected to assume the role for the next month.

Discussed that recurring tasks will have no description on Dework but a link to Ambassador Gitbook.

Went over the new Video Workgroup Budget Proposal Sheet made by Rojo which outlines the rewards for recurring tasks and video projects https://snet-ambassadors.gitbook.io/home/workgroups/video-workgroup/structure-and-governance/quartely-budget

Talked about the onboarding process: people interested in joining the video workgroup will be directed towards a task on Dework with several subtasks

Decisions:

[decision] Recurring tasks need level of seniority (can only be done by Senior Members) [decision] For the next months recurring tasks will be done as follows. Task management: Devon Hardy. Weekly meeting facilitation + preparation + documentation: Rojo. Weekly meeting summaries: Judith. Social Media Management: Malik. Town Hall editing: Tuso. Town Hall Summary editing: Lilycupcake [decision] Members are considered people who participate in meetings, votes and clip editing [decision] Senior Members are considered people who have spent 1 month as a member in the workgroup with at least 20 hours of tasks completed

Action items

[action] Will need to figure out permissions for social media soon, maybe on Monday [action] Members to be responsible for their newly selected recurring tasks immediately for the duration of 1 month

Keywords:

Topics covered Gitbook, Recurring Tasks, Task Assignment, Senior Member, Roles.

Sources:

Video workgroup's Carrd: https://vw-snetambassadors.carrd.co/ Video workgroup on Ambassador GitBook: https://snet-ambassadors.gitbook.io/home/workgroups/video-workgroup Quarterly budget on Ambassador GitBook: https://snet-ambassadors.gitbook.io/home/workgroups/video-workgroup/structure-and-governance/quartely-budget

How the meeting felt: Fun, Exciting, Collaborative, Productive

Writers Workgroup

Narrative:

Prospective new member Gorga Siagian joined the meeting, expressing interest in joining the writers workgroup. Kenichi guided Gorga through the onboarding process, providing detailed information.

Kenichi provided positive feedback on the current performance of the Scribblers. Encouragement to increase the number of scribblers due to consistent levels for the past three months. Noted increased interest from community members to join the writers' workgroup.

Collaboration and new ideas were encouraged among the team.

The team expressed the need for more content on Twitter. Suggestions and contributions from members are welcome.

With one more article pending publication, suggestions for additional articles were sought from the team.

Lady Tempest was tasked with completing her “Customer-Centric AI Solutions” article for Cogito and presenting it to Sandra in the upcoming meeting. Kenichi emphasized that the system of writing articles for Cogito is almost ready to go, highlighting progress.

There was discussion on implementing a content calendar for scheduling Twitter posts and tracking engagement.

Decision Items:

  • Kenichi suggested incorporating sports-related content

    • [rationale] To diversify and balance the focus, moving beyond articles solely about AI.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Incorporate more graphics in articles

    • [rationale] To enhance articles with visual appeal and engagement.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Points system: points will be added for biweekly sessions and trivia sessions

    • [rationale] Emphasizing the importance of recognition and reward.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Lady Tempestt to complete her “Customer-Centric AI Solutions” article for Cogito and present it to Sandra from Cogito in the next meeting. [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 19 January 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Lady Tempestt to provide the resources for her upcoming “Customer-Centric AI Solutions” article. [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 19 January 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Slate will be writing on "Usage of AI for Blockchain Transaction Detection." [assignee] Slate [due] 19 January 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] CjFrankie will be writing on "Unlocking Real Estate Investment Potential with Artificial Intelligence" [assignee] cjfrankie [due] 19 January 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] LadyTempestt will be writing on "AI's Impact on Journalism and Intellectual Property" (topic proposed by CjFrankie) [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 19 January 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Cogito, Points system, Journalism, Intellectual property, Real estate, Investment, Blockchain transaction detection, Customer-centric, Twitter, Graphics, sports, trivia sessions, content calendar, new member, Rewards, Recognition, Onboarding, Collaboration, New ideas, visual, Engagement

  • emotions: Ambitious, Building, New members

Saturday 13th January 2024

PreviousWeek 1NextWeek 3

Last updated

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