Week 40

Mon 30th Sep - Sun 6th Oct 2024

Tuesday 1st October 2024

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

Guillermo's answers to the objections on LatAm Guild's budget:

  1. The budget is too high: Guillermo stated that this affects the entire program, since in Q3 the market price was low. Vani also noted that LatAm's budget wasn’t the highest. Guillermo ended by saying that there’s a need for a better strategy to address this.

  2. Concerns about overlapping with the work of other WGs: Guillermo pointed out that the issue of "overlap" for regional Guilds has already been discussed in a previous Governance meeting, and there is already consensus that African and LatAm Guild are complementary to the program, and that it is valid for them to do tasks like onboarding, marketing and education independently, in ways that are appropriate to their particular region; so this objection is not valid. He cited the example of African Guild's "Ubuntu and AI" conference was held last Friday and Saturday. Guillermo noted that in terms of operations, LatAm Guild has independent sub-groups for communication, education, etc.

  3. Concerns about Lack of report, budget allocation, and Transparency: Guillermo noted that LatAm's budget for Q3 was down by about $2,000 after budget fitting and the group had to still deliver with that. He said the comment about the Q2 budget being shared by 2 individuals was not valid, because how the funds were going to be disbursed was captured in the Q2 proposal; at the time the Guild had only 2 founding members but before the start of Q3, the number had increased and the new members who joined and delivered on task were rewarded.

Peter pointed out that this last concern could have been refuted by the quarterly report, as it seems to be recurring. Guillermo noted that the activities of the Guild are on-chain and are verifiable on the Treasury Dashboard, also stating that there are summaries that report the activities. In response to the concern on transparency, Vani noted that since the objector was evidently able to see how funds were disbursed (i.e. that only 2 people were rewarded in Q2 and more were in Q3), surely that demonstrates that things are transparent?

Guillermo then highlighted some of the impact and contributions the LatAm Guild has made to the Program. He announced the Hackathon with the ASI collaboration initiative. Colleen appreciated the Hackathon initiative and the work being done by the Guild.

Guillermo ended by saying that it is important not to overlook these concerns, because we get to learn and he believes in this process. Peter appreciated Guillermo for addressing these concerns, as the objector would get clarity from listening to his perspective.

Discussion on objections and the consent process Vani suggested that instead of discussing the objections about specific WGs, which can become quite confrontational, we should pull some of the concerns and questions raised and discuss them in general. Peter agreed that is the way to go about it. Should we continue with this existing consent process? Vani noted that she doesn’t think people are convinced we should. LadyTempestt expressed her issues with the current consent process, and how it takes time and can get confrontational. Vani noted there is a need to have a conversation about what a metric is, as this has been a recurring concern.

LadyTempestt asked about the expectation of Writers' WG coming back with a reduction to their budget - they have done so, but it doesn't appear to have affected the current lowering percentage for budget-fitting. Peter pointed out that there is an error in the sheet which could explain theis - it will be corrected.

Finalizing on the Task list for Governance WG in Q3 Vani shared the spreadsheet. She noted that some tasks don’t have a price allocated to them, and some, we don't know who did them. She asked people to have a look at it, especially those who had done a task in the WG in Q3.

Retrospective on the entire Consent process Vani suggested a retrospective on the entire Consent process experiment overall, across all the time we have been using it, in addition to the normal retrospective on how the process went this Quarter. This was agreed; and we agreed that such a session will need some planning. Effiom noted the feedback gotten during the session would inform the context of whether it’s a retrospective of the entire process or just this quarter.

Discussion Points:

  • Completion of budget approval process for GitHub PBL WG and LatAm Guild

  • Discussion on objections and the consent process

  • Finalizing on the Task list for Governance WG in Q3

  • Planning for a retrospective on the entire Consent process over several Quarters

Decision Items:

  • We agreed that GitHub PBL WG's budget has passed

    • [rationale] One objector didn’t give any reason, hence, there are 3 objectors, 10 consenters, and 2 abstentions for the WG.

One of the 3 objections is invalid, as the objector said, “I don’t think this WG is harmful”, and based on the process, a valid objection has to identify harm to the program.

So GitHub PBL has passed at 14% objectors, which is under the 20% threshold.

  • [opposing] We noted that 2 of the 3 objections highlighted the potential of collaboration with Education Guild, so perhaps this is a concern that should be addressed?

But as we didn’t do a deep dive into the objections raised for other WGs that have been approved, we agreed we shouldn’t do that with GitHub PBL.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that LatAm Guild's budget has passed.

    • [rationale] One objector didn’t give any reason, hence there were 3 Objectors, 4 abstentions, 9 Consenters. This gives a total of 18.75% objectors, which is under the 20% threshold, so the budget passes. But for clarity, Guillermo nevertheless went through the objections and answered them - see "Narrative" above.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that instead of discussing the objections about specific WGs, in future we should pull together the main concerns and questions into a doc, and discuss them in general terms.

    • [rationale] Because discussing objections to individual WGs can become quite confrontational; and there are several issues that have been raised for several WGs and so could be discussed in general terms

    • [opposing] Note that we did not agree an action item for anyone to create such a doc, so this will need to be raised again in a later meeting.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed on a retrospective on Tues 8th Oct about the Consent process as a whole, collating info from Quarterly retrospectives and asking people what they think the overall effects have been.

    • [rationale] Because Consent decisionmaking was originally adopted as an experiment; so experimental method suggests we should gather data to assess what the results have been overall. Since we have now been using this decisionmaking methodology for several Quarters, now is a good time to look at this.

    • [opposing] none.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani, Peter, Onize, LadyTempestt, and Guillermo will plan the retrospective session on the Consent process as a whole [assignee] CallyFromAuron, PeterE, Onize, LadyTempestt, guillermolucero [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Tevo to check and update any errors in the Quarterly budget Planner sheet [assignee] Tevo [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Those who have done a task in Governance WG in Q3 which does not already have an agreed price, should suggest pricing in the Tasks sheet [assignee] all [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: consent decision making, LatAm Guild, GitHub PBL workgroup, budget approval, objections, confrontational, regional guilds, retrospective, Writers WorkGroup, lowering percentage, Budget fitting, transparency, Documentation, budget concerns

  • emotions: interesting, Deliberative, contributive, decisive

Wednesday 2nd October 2024

Archives Workgroup

Decision Items:

  • We decided that for Q4 2024 we will meet monthly, on the first Wednesday of each month. Today is therefore our October meeting; then 6th Nov and 4th Dec. This means that work will be more async this Quarter, and people are encouraged to update their Issues on the project board themselves, outside of meetings, if needed. We will review this decision in our meeting on 4th December and decide whether to revert to fortnightly meetings for Q1 2025.

    • [rationale] Mainly because due to our very focused budget this Quarter, there will not be many tasks for new people in Q4, so there will not be so much need to meet.

    • [opposing] We noted that this might reduce participation in meetings - but we hope to mitigate this by meeting "on the first Wednesday of the month" which might be easier to remember.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • On the redesign of the meeting summary tool - the next key "ease-of-use" feature that André will be implementing is the ability to output all meeting summaries for a particular WG for a period. The plan was to enable output for a whole quarter, but the meeting suggested also making it possible to output all summaries for a month.

    • [rationale] Particularly because people sometimes want all summaries for a month to help with their reporting

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • RE tool development for October, we noted that André has recently fixed a bug which caused some accounts not to be able to save a summary. It seemed to be triggered by the "No Summary Given" function, but is now fixed

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • On August and September Archives GitBook, we noted that there is still some delay with getting Governance WG summaries up to date, but it is nearly there; some Town Halls are still outstanding and need to be added; and some Marketing Guild summaries are missing.

We noted that the Marketing Guild meeting summary of 16th August, which said "For the sake of working effectively in a ‘singular’ and not divided pattern, decisions being made in the marketing guild should not be made public and outside the guild henceforth", doesn't refer to Marketing Guild summaries at all, as we had thought. According to info from Marketing Guild members who were in this meeting, it actually refers to a specific decision about a collaboration with Rejuve, rather than about Marketing Guild summaries in general, and is rather unclearly-written. So this is not the reason that some Marketing Guild summaries are missing, and we are glad to note that there has not been (as it appeared at first) a decision in Marketing Guild not to document their meetings. Onyeka has access to some of the missing Marketing summaries and will add them.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Video walkthru of how to use the GitHub Board - see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/116 - not yet completed, but Onyeka will add the completed video to the Issue as soon as possible, and if needed, we'll review it in our November meeting. [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 6 November 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Stephen to set a date in October for presenting the "Open-source paradigm" work at a TH, and let Peter know - this will be done async outside of meetings. [assignee] Stephen [QADAO] [due] 30 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Sucre to finish updating Ambassador gitbook to reflect changes to the Onboarding process by the end of the Quarter - not yet complete, as Sucre has been away - Vani will ask her to update the Issue async when done [assignee] Sucre n Spice, CallyFromAuron [due] 6 November 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Clement or Onyeka to announce the winners of the Good Meeting Summary prize some time in the coming week, and update the issue accordingly https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/191 [assignee] lord kizzy, Clement Umoh [due] 9 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: meeting frequency, monthly meetings, Q4 budget, async, async working, summary tool redesign, Tool Development, meeting summary tool, good meeting summaries, Ambassador GitBook, open source ethos, open source, Town Hall, Town Hall presentation, GitHub video walkthrough, github board, Marketing WG, Governance workgroup

  • emotions: short, focused, simple, new people present

Research and Development Guild

Agenda Items:

  • Welcoming new members and Introduction

  • Review of last meeting summary Action Items

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: EC-Entity-Connections, W3CD-Web3-Contributors-Dashboard, CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database, Social-Media-Dashboard, Reputation-System-using-SoulBound-Tokens-SBTs

  • R&D New Operations System Retrospective

  • Collective decision Guild Members on the Entity connections

  • Proposal voting results

Discussion Points:

  • Review of last meeting summary Action Items: Lordkizzy went through the action items for the previous meeting and we had a brief introduction for new members.

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Collaboration Skills Database: AJ highlighted that they had completed the issues of hosting and it's all good from their end. Due to some difficulties in presentation, Guild members have asked to team to create a walkthrough video for the townhall presentation.

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Legacy system: kenichi noted that he needed to have a call with his team on the first iteration, making sure the UI/UX of the platform is ready, so that work can commence on the backend. Their plan is to get the Soul Bound Tokens modeled and optimize their first NFT.

  • Proposal voting results: We had a total of 29 votes (3 votes came after the deadline). We will go through them to ensure voters were core contributors, and present the proposals that pass the voting quorum and will be funded for this Quarter. Once all is sorted out, the marketing guild will help push out the results on our socials.

  • Discussions on R&D New Operations System Retrospective: Guillermo presented the R&D New Operations System Retrospective document that will be used to gather feedback from the community to group, and in the next call, we can have an interactive session where members can provide feedback on the system. Here is the Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UzCa_pVjdCQ2WJkPXfNDa-4ic-YGjJQ-sH45gx4P_xg/edit?usp=sharing

  • Discussion on the Collective decision for Guild Members on the Entity connections: Guillermo indicated that a call was held to review the milestone deliverables on the project so far and noted that only 15-20% of the entire project deliverable has been submitted in the repository. He is going to present a report on the call, so that members can take a collective decision.

Decision Items:

  • We decided to approve the 3 votes that came in after the deadline

    • [rationale] members felt they should be included since they don't have any significant impact to the results of the votes

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Duke to give the presentation of the Ideation Project on Impact of Lingual Differences [assignee] Duke [due] 8 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] AJ, Emmanuel and kenichi to provide a video showing the final deliverables on the skill database proposal [assignee] AJ, Emmanuel(advanceameyaw), Kenichi [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] AJ, ameyaw, kenichi to give a 3-minute presentation for the final deliverables on CSDB and Legacy system at Townhall [assignee] AJ, Advanceameyaw, Kenichi [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to present a report on the discussion on the review of the Entity connections [assignee] Guillermo [due] 8 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guilds, Tool Development, AI tooling, Operations, Deliverables, Presentation, Documentation, voting, Operations, Entity Connections, Marketing initiative

  • emotions: Casual, speedy, Welcoming, Thoughtful, Friendly, lengthy, argumentative

Knowledge Base Workgroup

Agenda item 1 - Introduction to Knowledge Base WG - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Onboarding video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlHcTBzeJ0Y

  • Walkthrough of the Q4 Proposal

  • KBWG Q4 Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGPADj5Syu4eblKRpyY5I9PKj77uqsiO77s5FZd0oxQ/

Action Items:

  • [action] Proposal link and other relevant links to be shared in the description on YouTube [assignee] Tevo [due] 3 October 2024 [status] done

Agenda item 2 - Meetings Schedule for Knowledge Base WG - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

KBWG Schedule: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVN-9yivE=/?moveToWidget=3458764601683623141&cot=10

  • What are the main topics for meetings?

  • How do we address Budget Fitting?

Decision Items:

  • Reduce bi-weekly meetings by one

    • [rationale] For budget-fitting, we would have 5 instead of 6 meetings this quarter

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Using the same link started with Treasury Guild

    • [rationale] We agreed that the link can still be used.

    • [opposing] None

  • Setting up requirements to start using GPT is a main topic for the next meeting

    • [rationale] This is one of the key deliverables for Q4, hence, starting the implementation early is the way to go.

    • [opposing] None

Action Items:

  • [action] Invite people to schedule time for Knowledge Base WG [assignee] Tevo [due] 7 October 2024 [status] in progress

Agenda item 3 - Collect and Format Items - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • KBWG Miro Board and Activities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml_kDw09omQ

  • Determining a cut-off date for asset collection for proper tracking

  • Extra Initial Formatting

  • How do we collect items? Process explanation

Decision Items:

  • Add a new deadline until where we don't have to dig into the history

    • [rationale] We agreed this would inform those collecting these items on which period to focus on

    • [opposing] None

  • The process of collecting might drastically change with the use of new processes

    • [rationale] The WG is modifying several processes this quarter from async onboarding to the creation of our gitbook

    • [opposing] None

  • Members can create dework tasks on done work themselves

    • [rationale] Since our we have fewer meetings this quarter, this would promote async work better.

    • [opposing] None

Action Items:

  • [action] Combine formatting, analyzing, and collecting tasks into one template in Dework [assignee] Tevo [due] 4 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Remove WGs without any unique assets left and Fit New WGs in the frame [status] todo

  • [action] Clean Away everything that is not valid (pink color) [status] todo

Agenda item 4 - Knowledge Base WG Miro Board Updates - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • The relevance and impact of bitly link

  • Assigning Deliverables to Schedule

Decision Items:

  • Change Proposal Bitly Link

    • [rationale] We agreed that this would be a metric to look at by the end of the quarter, hence the need to change the link

    • [opposing] None

Action Items:

  • [action] Updated Relevant Links and Workgroup Roles Area [assignee] Tevo [due] 4 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Created Snapshot of results (Archive) [status] todo

Agenda item 5 - Meeting Summary - 02.10.2024 - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Meeting Summaries Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nT2f4Mo5ySK26W6r2zNLMY-uDKiRNdNRXLzykONUIR4/

  • Selecting process for meeting summarizer and reviewer

Decision Items:

  • Deadline to draft the meeting summary is 07.10.2024 and the final meeting note should be available by 09.10.2024

    • [rationale] So people get the chance to see tasks assigned to them and also it would be exactly one week after the last meeting.

    • [opposing] None

  • In case of a tie. If you have done meeting summary before, then task rotation starts based who has done the least

    • [rationale] This would allow and foster participation and contribution among members of the WG

    • [opposing] None

Action Items:

  • [action] Effiom to draft meeting summary and Advanceameyaw to review [assignee] Effiom, advanceameyaw [due] 9 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Find a random picker tool to select people for contribution [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Miro Board, collect and format, items, updates, Meeting Summaries, scheduler, assigning, Dework, Budget fitting

  • emotions: Collaborative, fun, interesting

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], osmium, Clement Umoh, GorgaSiagian, esewilliams, kateri, lord kizzy, malik, SubZero, Billy, Kareem

  • Purpose: Regular meeting of Education Guild. This meeting covered: Certification Program Discussions - Ai for Beginners Discussion - Updates from the Website - Webinar Series

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Certification Program Discussions

  • Ai for Beginners Discussion

  • Updates from the Website

  • Webinar Series

Discussion Points:

  • Slate started the meeting greeting everyone

  • Then Slate went over the certification program updates. The automation is almost complete and the only thing that's left is a single classroom and dashboard setup. We are going to have one week of testing everything, then we are going to set up a seperate channel for the certification program. Afterwards the announcement for the CCCP will be starting, hopefully from the next week.

  • Ai for Beginners project: there is progress going on; video wg was reached out to for this purpose and the transcripts will be reviewed internally by the project lead and one other education guild member. Slate and Billy requested to document the process so it can be made transparent to everybody

  • Osmium mentioned that he has been in talks with the governance wg for the webinar series and will soon have updates from there as well

  • Gorga mentioned that the wiki website design is being worked on and will soon be presented to the group

Decision Items:

  • Ai for Beginners Process

    • [rationale] most of the group agreed

    • [opposing] Nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Document each change

    • [rationale] nil

    • [opposing] nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Rewards for the certification program to be put to vote

    • [rationale] mostly agreed

    • [opposing] nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Test the CCCP Automation with osmium and Gorga [assignee] Slate, osmium, GorgaSiagian [due] 9 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Complete the dashboard [assignee] Slate [due] 9 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Document the changes for Ai for Beginners [assignee] esewilliams, osmium [due] 9 October 2024 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Presentation, CCCP, Budget Request, Quarterly Report, ideation, Reward automation, CCCP dashboard, dashboard, testing, Ai for Beginners, documentation, Wiki, Video WG, Governance WG

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.

Thursday 3rd October 2024

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

  1. Reflecting on the recent X space with Ocean Ambassadors (see https://x.com/SNET_Ambassador/status/1841461009573200184) - we said it will be really positive to have ongoing connection with Ocean ambassadors and learn from them. We noted their GitBook https://docs.oceanprotocol.com, and we noted that the X space raised interesting questions on how each Ambassador program approaches the issue of how to attract and retain capable people, especially given that an Ambassador Program usually cannot pay "market rates". Peter also raised the issue - at the X space itself, and in this meeting - that the sNET Ambassador Program is a bit different from the average, and that he likes the fact that we have a focus on building decentralised community, not just creating content. This meeting generally agreed with this.

  2. We looked at the Tasks sheet for Governance WG and set action items on how to progress it (see "Action Items" below)

  3. We agreed that at the next Open Gov meeting on 10th Oct, Onboarding WG will share their work on "Onboarding Journeys".

  4. We noted that next Tuesday (8th Oct)'s Gov WG session will be a retrospective on the entire "consent decisionmaking" experiment over the last several Quarters, and a small group (Peter, Vani, Guillermo, Love, Onize) will meet on Mon 7th to plan the session. It might lead to further discussion on the agenda item "Should we consider trying a different decision-making process, or continue to explore Consent decision making? How and where will we further discuss possible changes to the process?"

  5. We re-discussed the ongoing agenda issue of "Increasing numbers vs, non-increasing Program budget". We noted that this issue also came up in Onboarding WG earlier today; several WGs are closed or closing, so what are we onboarding people to? We discussed whether there should be some kind of cap on numbers in the program overall - the main thoughts were:

  • If there's a cap on total numbers, how many? (Suggestion:around 60? We currently have 54-ish Core Contributors, and things are beginning to feel "full")

  • If we have a cap, we would need to be clearer about how people come in, and what the "front door" actually is. The "front door" in a sense may be the extant process for becoming a Core Contributor - but where are people coming in to that process from? There was a suggestion that many people are invited by a friend.

  • Should people join the Program by invitation, after they have been attending meetings for a while, and if they talk sense and seem committed? (This obviously raises the question of who "invites" them and who decides. Also, are they "invited" to be a Core Contributor, thereby removing the existing process of automatically becomeing a Core Contributor based on one's activities; or are they simply invited to join the Program at all, and work towards becoming a Core Contributor?)

  • Should we have a set date in the quarter when we accept new people; and otherwise, the official line is "We're closed"?

  • Should any caps on numbers not be across the Program as a whole, but decided WG-by-WG? (i.e. a WG can decide to close, but other WGs might remain open to new people)

  • If a WG is closed, this would probably mean that new people can still attend meetings and engage in discussion/share their opinions, but not officially join the WG or take paid tasks.

  1. We noted that Core Contributors would need to make the decision about whether to bring in a cap on numbers. We noted that many people are feeling exhausted after the lengthy Q4 budget decision process, so it would probably be best not to start a decision process on a numbers cap immediately, but to allow a couple of weeks for people to "recover". We also noted that the decision would not necessarily need to be made using consent decision-making; another methodology could be selected.

  2. We noted that for many decision-making processes (including consent decision-making), there needs to be a proposal to discuss, vote on, consent to, etc. We also noted a potential difficulty: any proposal on this issue would probably have multiple elements, and people might agree with one, and not another; so a proposal would need to be broken down into its different elements and agreement would need to be reached on each part.

  3. We noted that the consent decision-making process currently in use was intended as an experiment; that there is discussion in progress on whether to continue with it, or try a different methodology; and that in the Governance WG session on Tuesday 8th Oct there will be a retrospective session on how the consent methodology has gone overall. We mentioned several other possible processes, including consensus, and advisory (a small group researches and makes recommendations). There was some supporrt for trying both of these, as well as support for the modified "consent process" with an 8-% threshold which has been used for the Q4 budget decision..

  4. In the light of the above, we decided (see "decisions" below) to create a small, temporary focus group to further discuss the issue of a cap on numbers, and to come up with a proposal that could be used in a consent process on the issue if it is decided that consent is the methodology that should be used. This use of a focus group is, in effect, the beginnings of including an "advisory" element in our decisionmaking. The focus group will bring their findings, and a suggested proposal on which Core Contributors could be asked for consent, to the Governance WG meeting on Tues 15th Oct.

Decision Items:

  • The next Open Gov meeting on 10th Oct will feature a session from Onboarding WG about the research-based work they have done on "Onboarding Journeys", looking at how people onboard to the program and the supports and barriers new people might experience.

    • [rationale] To discuss the research, and see if it helps identify how we can help people overcome barriers.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Clement, Ese, Ayo and Ashley will form a temporary focus group to further discuss the issue of a cap on numbers, and to create a proposal about it, on which Core Contributors could be asked for consent or around which another decision methodology (e.g. consensus) could be based. They will bring their findings to the Governance meeting on Tues 15th Oct. They'll receive $40 per person for this work, which will probably (TBC) be taken from the "Initiative incentives" budget line in Governance WG's Q4 budget.

    • [rationale] Ashley was invited as she is new, and it would be useful to have the perspective of someone who isn't yet fully onboarded.

    • [opposing] There were suggestions of paying $50 or $30; the middle ground was selected.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] On the Tasks sheet, Vani will 1) chase up who did any missing Q3 tasks; 2) add draft costings for the Q3 tasks that are not costed, and bring it to the next meeting; 3) add Q3 tasks to Dework 4) create a new sheet for Q4 tasks [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 10 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Colleen will DM Ashley to ensure she knows how to get involved with the focus group and has added her wallet to the Treasury system [assignee] CollyPride [due] 7 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Decision Making Process, consent decision making, consensus decision making, advisory decision making, Proposal, Q3 budget tasks, Focus Group, Onboarding WG, cap, numbers cap, retrospective, onboarding journeys, ocean, X spaces, Ocean ambassador program, capability, Rewards, decentralised, decentralised community

  • emotions: long, engaging, participatory, exploratory, new people present

Onboarding Workgroup

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Minutes of the last meeting: We agreed the minutes of the last meeting

  • Skillshare matrix: The regular reminder was given for new people to input their skills into the skillshare matrix document.

  • Action items from the last meeting.

  • Facilitation/documentation next meeting: Duke is facilitating with MartinSoki documenting and adding to the summary tool.

  • Town hall update: Duke will give the townhall update for October.

  • Onboarding Journey: Onize agreed to lead the Onboarding Journey session alongside Duke.

  • Q4 Budget: The focus group has finalised the budget fitting. Meetings will now take place biweekly; .

  • Skillshare sessions: We agreed to have 2 sessions this Quarter after all - Understanding decentralised Governance, & Monitoring and Evaluation.

  • Inactive members: We need to look at removing the Onboarding tag from people who are no longer active. Also to note that since the workgroup is closed, it is not possible to get the tag back if taken from. Duke asked "how large we want the ambassador program to be overall?" Due to wider issues with budget concerns. A suggestion was made to raise this in the Open Governance meeting because it is a general concern.

Decision Items:

  • Q4 Budget: We decided to move the analysis of the research project on "onboarding to decentralization" to Q1 2025.

    • [rationale] Budget fitting

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Skillshare session: We decided to have both of the proposed sessions this quarter. Understanding decentralized governance on 5th December 2024, led by Vani, & Monitoring and Evaluation on 21st November 2024, led by Onize.

    • [rationale] Because we have a bit of surplus after our budget fitting

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Inactive members: We agreed that the inactive members' "Onboarding WG" tags will be removed, but Martinsoki will retain his even though he has been somewhat inactive, because he has a documentation task assigned to him next meeting.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani to contact Onize to ask if she will help lead the session on the Onboarding journeys on 3rd October [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 3 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Colleen to approach Gorga and ask him to post hos written apology by the end of the month [assignee] CollyPride [due] 30 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] The focus group is to finalise budget for Q4 budget [assignee] SucrenSpice, LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron [due] 3 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] LordKizzy to rework the Q4 roster to reflect our decision to meet fortnightly in this quarter. [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 3 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Duke to check the ambassador calendar and put in the respective dates for our meetings and the skill share session. [assignee] Duke Peter [due] 17 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Duke to facilitate next meeting and MartinSoki to document [assignee] Duke Peter, MartinSoki [due] 17 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Duke to give Town hall update [assignee] Duke Peter [due] 29 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Onize and Duke to share facilitation of the Onboarding Journey session with the community on governance call [assignee] Onize, Duke Peter [due] 10 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to add Onboarding Journeys on the agenda for governance call [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 10 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Ayo and kateri to present a draft of the research project next meeting. [assignee] oluAyoola7D, Kateri [due] 17 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Onize to lead Monitoring and Evaluation session on the 24th November. [assignee] Onize [due] 24 November 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to lead Decentralized governance on 5th December. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 5 December 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Members are to go through the Q4 budget proposal to raise any objections or add comments [assignee] Onboarding WG members [due] 17 October 2024 [status] todo

To carry over for next meeting:

  • Townhall update, Research project, Q4 budget proposal.

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: TH Update, Onboarding Journey Scripts, skills matrix, Q4 2024 budget, Budget fitting, Focus Group, research, Marketing WG, biweekly, fortnightly, meeting dates, Inactive members, Skillshare session, decentralisation, monitoring and evaluation, M&E

  • emotions: Friendly, Full house, Collaborative, Casual

Friday 4th October 2024

Video Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], devon [documenter], malik, lord kizzy, Slate, SubZero, osmium, Cjfrankie, Rojo, lilycupcake, AJ, TheFreysDeFi

  • Purpose: Regular meeting of the Video WG. This meeting focused on task updates, automation tool, and budget cuts.

  • Working Docs:

Discussion Points:

  • Rojo provided updates on our social media role: the usual schedule is being followed, i.e. short videos are posted every Tuesday and Saturday at 11:00 UTC, while long videos are shared on Monday or Friday at 17:00 UTC. He confirmed that all videos from last month have been uploaded. Rojo also hosted an X space with the Ocean Protocol ambassador program, which received positive feedback. He is currently fine-tuning the automation tool, which is experiencing backend issues with long video posts being done manually. Rojo acknowledged that he forgot to grant senior members access to the automation tool; senior members should ask him for a login. Additionally, he is engaging with commenters. He mentioned that he is manually posting on Instagram due to API issues, as Meta isn't providing access.

  • Rojo mentioned that he is developing a feature called "mixpost" for the automation tool, which allows creators to post directly without sharing a drive link. Kizzy inquired how voting for videos would work; Rojo explained that users can comment on the video on mixpost before it is uploaded to social platforms. He also noted that he is encountering some issues with this feature, which he hopes to resolve soon.

  • Devon provided updates on Zealy, noting that he asked Kenichi about the next sprint. Kenichi replied that it won't be happening soon and that Zealy is now under the marketing guild, rather than the video or writers workgroup.

  • Lord_Kizzy explained that Zealy's structure is changing, with the next sprint focusing on outreach rather than videos and articles, as having two Zealys within one community indicates a lack of communication. They will experiment with a tiered structure and compare its effectiveness to the previous approach. Rojo noted that while Zealy is improving metrics, it serves more for itself than for the video workgroup. He suggested hosting live streams, like X spaces, to increase participation, potentially featuring a meme or video creation competition with rewards for the top three using the Zealy platform. Kizzy affirmed that this new Zealy approach aims to achieve similar goals.

  • Rojo suggested that since Zealy is ending, we should allocate those funds to live X spaces and giveaways for meme or video competitions. Kizzy countered that we still owe $225 to Writers WG, and that the previous sprint should be covered by the video workgroup. The remaining budget could then help offset cuts instead of being used for giveaways and X spaces.

  • With task manager not present, Slate went through all the pending tasks on the dework board. Rojo stated that he created the August monthly updates video and contacted the task manager to set up a task for it, but after two days, he hadn't seen a response. He suggested having a backup in case he is unavailable. Kizzy agreed to create a task for it, emphasizing that urgent videos can't be delayed.

  • Devon mentioned that the new videos feature unique intros and asked if we should use a single unified intro for all videos. Rojo suggested that we can maintain consistency in color and textures, the animations can differ.

  • Lilycupcake inquired about the criteria for posting shorts. Kizzy explained that they simply create a short and request the task manager to create a task for it. Kizzy also proposed a budget of $20 for clips and $30 for shorts created from scratch, which everyone agreed on. The discussion then shifted to the process for creating short clips, specifically whether there should be an open task for direct submissions or if there should be a vote on clip topics before creating them. Slate will create a poll in the channel for this purpose.

  • Kizzy presented the budget, noting a 17.47% overall cut, amounting to $1,651. To accommodate this, a 10% reduction was applied to every recurring task except quality control, with the remainder covered by the Zealy and contingency budgets. We then discussed how much to reduce the budget for the social media role. Members noted that we lack sufficient data to assess the impact of the new automation tool, and only after evaluating its effectiveness can we make a decision. Additionally, the allocation for social media isn't fixed; it's likely to be less utilized than originally planned, allowing savings to be redirected to other tasks.

  • Rojo proposed adding a budget for hosting weekly x spaces to increase engagement.

Decision Items:

  • The colors and textures of video intros should remain consistent.

    • [rationale] to maintain a unified approach through a common theme in videos

  • we decided to reward $30 for shorts created from scratch.

    • [rationale] as they differ from clips that are part of a long video.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Zealy allocation will be completely cut.

    • [rationale] As Zealy is now part of marketing guild, and to accommodate budget cuts.

Action Items:

  • [action] Task manager role for the month of september [assignee] hogantuso [status] todo

  • [action] Facilitator for the month of september [assignee] Slate [status] todo

  • [action] Town hall edit for the month of september [assignee] AndrewBen [status] todo

  • [action] Town hall summary for the month of september [assignee] killy [status] todo

  • [action] Meeting summary for the month of september [assignee] oep [status] todo

  • [action] Review team for the month of september [assignee] Zalfred, lord kizzy [status] todo

  • [action] create a task for Monthly Updates-August video [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 4 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Create a poll whether there should be an open task for direct submissions of clips or if there should be a vote on clip topics before creating them. [assignee] Slate [due] 4 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Rewards, Budget fitting, Zealy Updates, automation tool, Budget cuts, process for shorts

  • emotions: informative, interactive, productive, Thoughtful

Marketing Guild

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: lord kizzy [facilitator], Eric Davies [documenter], Ayo, Eric Davies, Ese Williams, Photogee, Kenichi, Advanceameyaw, Kareem, Cjfrankie, kateri, Mikasa, Moitlheki, lord kizzy, GorgaSiagian, PeterE, Osmium, Effiom, AshleyDawn, guillermolucero

  • Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting

Discussion Points:

  • Budget: No budget fitting was needed from Kizzy's side as all team members are currently underpaid, and we still have reserves, which will hopefully make up for the cuts

  • Podcast Update: Kenichi presented the forthcoming podcast initiative, showcasing its potential and the plan to leverage Zealy for engagement. He highlighted that intriguing quests submitted by Ese will be added to the board to enhance the initiative's content.

It was noted that the WWG monthly Zealy campaign is on hold, and the new Zealy initiative will be managed by the Marketing Guild.

There will be performance comparisons between the WWG Zealy sprints and the new initiative proposed by Ese, using these results to improve future activities.

Decision Items:

  • The team decided to replace Zealy with the community initiative for now, with the Marketing Guild funding all Zealy activities.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget proposal, podcasts, Graphics, Budget fitting, tooling, Zealy, community engagement

  • emotions: short, Collaborative, calm, Thoughtful

PreviousOctober 2024NextWeek 41

Last updated

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