Week 42

Mon 14th Oct - Sun 20th Oct 2024

Tuesday 15th October 2024

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], LadyTempestt [documenter], PeterE, LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron, CollyPride, esewilliams, guillermolucero, Sucre n Spice, LordKizzy, SubZero, Malik, AndrewBen, Kateri, kareem, kenichi, Ayo, eveline trinité, Effiom

  • Purpose: Weekly Gov WG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

Vani gave an overview of consent decisionmaking and how it's supposed to work:

  • There needs to be an actual proposal to consent or object to.

  • Consent = absence of actual objections, not perfect agreement - so "Safe to try" and "good enough for now", not complete agreement.

  • Need to ask objectors "What would need to change to get your consent?" - so rather than people trying to mold the proposal to fit their ideal, they just talk about what they specifically object to, and think would be actually harmful.

  • Decisionmaking is supposed to be in the hands of those who are closest to the issue; so it's "how does it harm you?"

  • In line with WG autonomy (as raised by Duke in the Q4 retrospective, and several other people over time), objections shouldn't be about what you think a WG should be doing - it should be that you are responding whether what the WG wants to do is "safe to try”, OR if you think it would cause harm, then "what harm would it cause? And what would have to change for you to consent?”

  • Vani suggested we have gone away from that, and somehow turned the process into a vote, not a consent process, especially with the “80% approval and 20% objections" rule. People are not responding as though we asked “Is it safe to try?”, but are giving lengthy analyses of how WGs should operate or should have been operating; and maybe that is what is making the consent process so difficult this time. She noted that most of us are educated to make decisions by voting and are less familiar with consent, or consensus, or consultative processes.

Our use of a consent process was originally an experiment. Experiments should be documented and evaluated.

We went through insights from past retrospectives (Q2, Q3, Q4): see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GorEmCJzcrq3b73p1XUa8E7yYD7_UQETt9axt89qff4/edit and added some of the issues raised to our Rolling Agenda doc:

  • should someone have a wallet to become a contributor?

  • Self nomination to become a core contributor?

  • Guidelines to what a “valid objection” is

  • Workgroup Autonomy (how autonomous should WG budgets be?) Vani suggested it might be useful to look back at documentation of the past meetings where we addressed these issues, and pull together some of the key points raised, to help the discussion in future meetings. Ayo was of the same sentiment.

On the point of “getting feedback through DMs from core contributors on why they don't take part in governance decisions,” Peter said it is a good idea to continue doing that.

Peter pointed out that having an outline on what a report should look like or context setting via this suggestion; “Find a way to avoid the verbosity and over-complexity of some reports and budgets e.g. an outline of what to include, though not an actual template” would be a good idea seeing as we do not have that in place now.

We discussed including "participation in the the budget consent process" as part of the “participation” that maintains someone's core contributor status; and how we would record and track this, since it doesn't appear on Dework (usually, someone's level of participation is calculated via tasks on Dework). We have said in the past that we would record participation in the consent process onchain (just the fact that someone completed a consent form, but not the details of whether they consented or objected), but it's unclear if this has been done yet. Peter said that he thinks it's a good idea to acknowledge and register participation in the governance process.

Guillermo shared an experience on the decision-making process of what happens in the R&D Guild: a milestone-style process. If someone is funded in previous rounds, and they deliver, let's say that's closure, milestone one. If they want to participate in the new community voting for new development, they will need to start from the beginning. And that way they go through the check and balance of the re-roll. Then the community goes through the process of consenting or not. He added that maybe there is something we can learn from this.

We basically glanced through all the rest of suggestions in the Retrospectives doc with no full discussion on it.

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to discuss everything open for discussion from the "retrospective insights" doc in future governance calls, by adding the topics to the Rolling Agenda

    • [rationale] So that we don't lose the issues that were raised

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani to add the main topics of discussion from the "retrospective insights" doc to the rolling agenda document and share them in the governance WG channel in the next few days. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 17 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to search previous meeting summaries where we discussed these issues in the past, and try to create some notes on what has previously been said [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 22 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: retrospectives, core contributors, consent decision making, consent process, Q2 Q3 and Q4 retrospective insights, R&D guild, participation

  • emotions: quiet, contributive, insightful

Wednesday 16th October 2024

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 Metta Coder lab

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 follow up: Advanceameyaw highlighted the issues with hosting and integration with the projects (WEB3 CONTRIBUTOR'S DASHBOARD & REPUTATION SYSTEM). The operational team will follow up on this async.

  • R&D Guild Metta Code Lab Initiative: Guillermo gave a presentation on the Metta Coder labs initiative: the structure, the benefits through education using use cases, and the way forward. Members shared some questions and the Guild approved the initiative.

Decision Items:

  • We decided to adopt monthly R&D Guild Metta coder lab sessions

    • [rationale] It will help keep members of the guild engaged and it also helps as a means for education

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] kenichi to give a 3-minute presentation for the final deliverables on Legacy system at Townhall on the 22nd Oct [assignee] Kenichi [due] 22 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to present a report on the discussion on the review of the Entity connections [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 23 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to speak to Kenichi about incorporating the final report of the proposal into the Q3 documentation. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 16 October 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Lordkizzy & Guillermo to schedule a follow-up call with the team for CSDB to discuss the integration and hosting of projects [assignee] lord kizzy, guillermolucero [due] 23 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo & Lordkizzy to schedule an operational team meeting to discuss the potential schedule and roadmap for the Metta Coder Lab sessions for Q4 [assignee] lord kizzy, guillermolucero [due] 23 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guilds, Tool Development, AI tooling, Operations, Deliverables, Presentation, Documentation, Operations, Metta, contributor dashboard

  • emotions: Casual, speedy, Welcoming, Thoughtful, Friendly, Collaborative, productive

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], Slate, AndrewBen, AshleyDawn, Clement Umoh, Eric Davies, esewilliams, Franklynstein, GorgaSiagian, kateri, Kenichi, Lex, lord kizzy, malik, martinsoki, osmium, Photogee, SubZero, Zalfred, hogantuso

  • Purpose: Regular meeting of Education Guild. This meeting covered: Updates from CCCP- Ai for Beginners Discussions-Wiki Website Updates- Webinar Series Updates- Updates from Kenichi regarding presentation series

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Updates from CCCP

  • Ai for Beginners Discussions

  • Wiki Website Updates

  • Webinar Series Updates

  • Updates from Kenichi regarding presentation series

Discussion Points:

  • Slate started the meeting greeting everyone

  • Slate gave some updates from the certification program: multiple core contributors are taking part in the certification program and many have already started. He also mentioned that Onize was able to complete most of the classroom and she has progressed to the classroom#15 but unfortunately she wasnt able to progress any further than that

  • Ese gave updates on the outreach of the certification program: socials have already posted about it, and regular updates will also be given through ambassador general Discord channel

  • Several video creators were selected for Ai for Beginners and assigned the modules. There was also a need for a scriptwriter, but since there were too many people in the meeting it will be selected asynchrounously

  • Franklyn and Gorga gave updates from the Wiki website creation: they will be presenting it in the upcoming meetings.

  • Osmium still needs some time to progress with the webinar series, and had no updates

  • Kenichi is already working on the first module of the presentation series, and will be using that as a reference for the rest of the presentations. The project will start in Q1 of 2025

  • The meeting wrapped up with good participation count

Decision Items:

  • Module creators selected

    • [rationale] most of the group agreed

    • [opposing] Nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Slate to update the Ai for Beginners arrangement document [assignee] Slate [due] 19 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Make the announcement for CCCP [assignee] esewilliams [due] 16 October 2024 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: CCCP, core contributors, announcement, publicity, outreach, social media, Discord, Ai for Beginners, video, video creators, scriptwriter, Wiki, presentation series, project updates

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.

Thursday 17th October 2024

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

  1. Report-back from the Focus Group (Ayo, Clement, Ashley and Ese) on whether or not there should be a cap on Ambassador Program membership. See their context-setting doc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SaZTEaLkYkfxfJeN_9V82olsYDTC3gBIeaT2dQLY9Fk/edit?usp=sharing.

Ayo talked through the doc, and answered a couple of questions. We noted:

  • when the doc says "fair" distribution of tasks, it does not necessarily mean "equal" distribution (e.g. it might be fair distribution only amongst those qualified/skilled to do a task)

  • the idea that WG closures and work-assigning processes should be decided on a WG-by-WG basis, rather than program-wide, is a perspective that has been raised in Governance meetings before, and therefore will be added to the doc.

  1. We discussed and agreed (see "Decisions" below) how to progress this issue. The Focus Group's recommendation is that we run a consent process on the options listed in the doc. We discussed:

  • How would this work practically? Suggestions included asking people to select all the options that they might consent to; or using a weighted vote where people distribute e.g. 10 points across the various options.

  • Would this be a binding decision-making consent process, or more of a "temperature-taking" one?

  • Is it open to only Core Contributors, or everyone?

  • How can we generate further discussion while preserving people's anonymity?

  • How can we publicise the process and encourage people to get involved?

  1. We discussed and agreed the plan in the Rolling Agenda doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t39dwlwLYYB_1z_5szq1rnOH7mVTHe8Tmwv0R6ELOyE/edit?usp=sharing, for what will be covered in future Governance calls over the next few weeks. We agreed that people will try to come a bit prepared for the first discussion (next Tues, 22nd Oct) by reading the doc "Ideas for new approaches to budget decisions", which came from previous Governance meetings https://docs.google.com/document/d/16jr_Yoq-d_WZWRMNcBFy-GkSNWFbm-VD2J14b69v520/edit?usp=sharing; and/or by looking at Jeremy Bolander's Miro about decision-making methods https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOsELu0U=/

  2. The issue of conflict resolution was raised, and it was mentioned that there have recently been some concerns raised about bullying. We referenced:

  • the "conflict resolution" doc that was produced by the old Strategy Guild https://docs.google.com/document/d/1beMEt9XmPvHNaH08Rh5_taTI0QhHcyy15Q6XcXXDWUI/edit?usp=sharing and suggested that we could look at it again;

  • the concept of having a team of "listeners" who can initially do non-directive listening and support anyone who is facing a conflict to decide how to deal with it

  • the idea that we might need some basic training on non-directive listening, and/or communi9cation workshops; and that we could look at trying to fund this in Q1 2025.

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to create a Cryptpad doc where the solutions suggested by the Focus Group can be further discussed by the whole community; not as a decision-making process yet, but as a "temperature-taking" exercise.

    • [rationale] Because we want to collect more input on the issue of a cap on participants in the Program; and we want a way that people can add their thoughts anonymously, but also see what other people are saying.

    • [opposing] We considered using a form, but rejected this because people cannot see and engage with other people's answers until afterwards; we also considered using a Miro board but rejected it because Miro is not very mobile-friendly, which might present a barrier to accessing it

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that the Cryptpad process will be open not only to Core Contributors, but to all

    • [rationale] Because if we are asking about a possible cap on membership of the Program, it could introduce bias if we only hear from those who are already members.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that we need to publicise the Cryptpad doc and encourage people to engage with it. We agreed to create and post infographics about it; and to add it to the agenda of any meetings we attend (including Town Hall), so it is mentioned and documented.

    • [rationale] Because increased publicity seems to be effective. For example, publicising the budget approval process for Q4 resulted in more engagement in the later consent rounds.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We decided to go with the plan in the Rolling Agenda doc for the topics of the next few Governance sessions; so the next session will be on whether to continue using Consent decisionmaking or not.

    • [rationale] Because we need to determine this basic thing before we can agree anything further about our decisionmaking processes.

    • [opposing] No opposing voices, though we did say that there should be some flexibility, and it will partly depend on what is agreed in each session.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed that we want to have some further discussion on how to approach conflict resolution and interpersonal issues such as bullying. We have not yet determined when this will take place.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani to create Cryptpad doc for anonymous discussion on the solutions suggested by the Focus Group [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 22 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to create an infographic to share and publicise the Cryptpad doc [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Decision Making Process, consent decision making, consensus decision making, advisory decision making, Focus Group, cap, numbers cap, retrospective, capability, decentralised, decentralised community, Core Contributor, conflict resolution, bullying, listening, communication skills, non-directive listening

  • emotions: engaging, participatory, well organised, funny , decisive

Onboarding Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Duke Peter [facilitator], MartinSoki, CallyFromAuron [documenter], LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron, lord kizzy, CollyPride, Duke Peter, AshleyDawn, OluAyoola7D, Kateri, MartinSoki, Olamide, Onize, Peter, Hogantuso, Cjfrankie, SucrenSpice, Eric Davies

  • Purpose: Weekly meeting discussing how to onboard people to the Ambassador program

  • Working Docs:

Town Hall Updates:

The October update will cover:

  • Recap of Github training session, and share Colleen's slides

  • Announce the shift to Biweekly meetings

  • Announce the two upcoming skills training sessions (M&E; decentralized governance)

  • Re-share the Onboarding journeys infographics, plus a doc where people can add their own input on barriers they have faced

In this meeting we discussed:

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

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

  • Action items from the last meeting: We went through the action items for the last meeting

  • Facilitation/documentation next meeting: Colleen to facilitate the next meeting (31st Oct) and Photogee to document and add to the summary tool.

  • Town hall update: Duke to give the townhall updates at the end of the month

  • Onboarding Journeys: Onize agreed to publicize the infographics created by Duke, Love and Cjfrankie in the ambassador-general Discord channel and other relevant channels. She will also create a survey for people to give info on their own onboarding experiences (see https://forms.gle/VcQVJAoXtYa1ukB77)

  • Skillshare matrix: LadyTempestt noted that the Skillshare Matrix might be somewhat redundant now, as the workgroup is currently closed, so all existing members have already added to it, and any new people would be adding their skills without being able to get paid tasks in which to use them. Vani suggested we could get further use out of the skillshare matrix by sharing it with the rest of the Program, perhaps in collaboration with R&D's collaboration skills database project - we might be able to add useful input on classifying and better representing non-tech skills, as we've done quite a lot of work on that in our skillshare matrix, and the R&D approach has tended to prioritise tech skills. Then LordKizzy spoke on R&D's Collaboration Skills Database project and its possible collaborations with the Onboarding workgroup. He suggested gathering skills of members through the R&D Guild project rather than having two initiatives that serve the same purpose. We agreed to discuss further next meeting.

  • Onboarding to decentralization research project: Ayo shared a planning doc created by him and Kateri (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/14erz8t4HKPtql7BB9dK6bKLZ-2KFxay76YWrqgmBfRI/edit?usp=sharing) to outline possible questions, and we discussed. Couple of suggestions were made for minor changes, but generally, the group approved it. Ayo and Kateri will come back next meeting to outline a research strategy or approach.

Decision Items:

  • It was decided during the meeting that the recording of the GitHub training should not be timestamped or shared

    • [rationale] Colleen was absent and Vani had to step in to host the session without adequate preparation, so it might not be that useful; also, LordKizzy has already produced a GitHub walkthru video for Archives WG - see https://youtu.be/abaUWUBOU28?si=PyR0CRq9CLC2e3Na

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Onize suggested promoting the onboarding journeys by visiting various workgroup meetings and sharing them, and by creating a form for people to submit their own experiences (see https://forms.gle/VcQVJAoXtYa1ukB77). We decided against sharing information about onboarding challenges on public platforms such as X, since it could be perceived as negative; so we agreed to keep it internal only.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [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] 31 October 2024 [status] todo

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

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

  • [action] Onize and Duke to share the onboarding Journey with the community on governance call [assignee] Onize, Duke Peter [due] 10 October 2024 [status] done

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

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

  • [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] Colleen to facilitate the next meeting and Photogee to document. [assignee] Colleen, Photogee [due] 31 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to follow up on Colleen, and Ayo to follow up on Photogee on their availability. [assignee] CallyFromAuron, Ayo [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Onize to share the onboarding journey graphics in the ambassador general channel and create a document for feedback on challenges faced. [assignee] Onize [due] 31 October 2024 [status] done

To carry over for next meeting:

  • Townhall update, Research project, Q4 budget proposal, Skillshare matrix.

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: TH Update, Onboarding Journey Scripts, skills matrix, research, decentralisation, decentralization, Collaboration Skills Database, R&D Guild, collaboration, non-tech skills, classifying skills

  • emotions: Friendly, Collaborative, speedy

AI Sandbox

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: lord kizzy [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], lord kizzy, Onize, PeterE, Effiom, Advanceameyaw, Clement Umoh, Kateri, Ayo, MartinSoki, TheFreysDeFi

  • Purpose: Template for AI Sandbox exhibition

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Welcoming and Introduction of new members

  • Explanation of the ai sandbox: Lord kizzy stated that Sandbox is where we come up with tools exhibition and project showcases, and highlight AI tools and the applications, their use cases, their problem statements. It will be an interactive space where everyone can chip in their thoughts and opinions and we will get to explore. We will learn how to use these tools and see their practical applications.

  • AI sandbox template: The first segment of the meeting focused on exhibition of AI tools. Tools are showcased using a structured slide presentation, providing a comprehensive understanding of their functionality and application. It was noted that in this first session that we expect to see an overview of the tool sets (detailed description) and their use cases, the architectural and technological stack (library or expository of the framework of the AI model, or a visual or graphical representation of the architecture through using either a flowchart diagram or a pie chart). People can either present the tool using a live demonstration, or create a video walkthrough on how the tool is used.

  • Documentation and presentation guidelines for AI Sandbox and think tank: once you have a tool that you want to present, you should create a slideshow and follow the format provided; then send the link to the tools leads for correction and editing. Once it is all good, you will be allowed to present in a next meeting. In the slideshow the first slide should show the tool name, next is the architecture and technological stack (this is going to contain 2 pages; the first a library link or repository and the second geographical representation of the architecture); next is the demonstration, outcome reports/ results and impact and finally the thank you page.

Decision Items:

  • We are going to have the sessions simultaneously, so AI sandbox a week, then Think Tank the next week.

    • [rationale] it gives enough time for members to interact efficiently

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We decided to have only two AI toolset exhibition

  • We decided that any member who is meant to present or to make a presentation on the next call should create a slideshow

Action Items:

  • [action] Lord kizzy and osmium to create a presentation template for exhibitions in sandbox sessions [assignee] lord kizzy, osmium [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Peter to sort out the Zoom account settings for future meetings. [assignee] Peter [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Members who want to document should indicate [assignee] All Members [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Lord kizzy to create a repository for the next call where members could submit polls documentation for the AI tools. [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 24 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Experimentation, Exhibitions, AI tooling

  • emotions: Collaborative, speedy, progressive, Welcoming, interesting

Friday 18th October 2024

Video Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: oep [facilitator], Hogantuso [documenter], malik, lord kizzy, SubZero, Rojo, lilycupcake, AndrewBen, Zalfred, Hogantuso

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

  • Working Docs:

Discussion Points:

  • Zalfred provided updates on the task manager role: informing the house that there was not much work done as the role was given three days ago and had engaged in an operational call as the essence is to help the new review members get acquainted with a smooth process as a team, emphasizing communication between the task manager the review team and the video editors; and as he is picking up from where the previous task manager stopped.

  • Lord Kizzy shared the screen and gave a breakdown explanation of the content calendar for the entire ambassador program, sharing the goals and guidelines to get submissions from other guilds and workgroups, making sure they align with the guidelines before being posted or scheduled. We are yet to get information/schedules to complete the calendar from other workgroups. Kizzy did make mention of the weekly recaps on articles and videos going out at the end of every week and looking at opening a channel, having two representatives from each workgroup to track submissions from the workgroup knowing the current status of the workgroup post. having the workgroup social media marketers from the video, writers, and marketing workgroup present giving their ideas and coming up with this information. Kizzy also gave an update informing the workgroup on the animation team for the month and how we will go about the subscription process.

Action Items:

  • [action] Create a pool for members interested in creating animation for the video workgroup to get assigned. [assignee] oep [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: social media management, participation, Collaboration, pool, animation, content calendar, writers WG, marketing guild

  • emotions: informative, productive, Collaborative, new ideas

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Unified Content Calendar: Kizzy mentioned that a single content calendar has been created, including a schedule for videos and the Marketing Guild, allowing us to know in advance what content will be published. We are still awaiting information from the Writers' Workgroup to add additional content to the calendar.

  • Did You Know” Content: The "Did You Know" content has been revamped and is in progress, by Ese.

  • Community Initiatives:Ese reported that only a few submissions have been received, which has been communicated to Photogee. Ayo suggested reporting to Kizzy, Kenichi, or Ayo.

  • Mascot Initiative: Kareem mentioned that the mascot initiative, ending on October 20, 2024, has so far received only 9 submissions, possibly due to the required skills for participation, though we are still hoping for more entries.

  • Zealot Campaign: Kenichi mentioned encountering challenges that have hindered progress on the Zealot campaign.

  • Podcast Campaign: Kenichi has made progress with the podcast campaign, including drafting an invitation letter, setting details for episode one, creating a list of discussion points, and preparing questions. There is a need to source questions from the community for the podcast. The team also needs to decide whether to switch producers for each episode or stick to one producer for all four episodes. Writers need to be assigned to start researching questions and gathering community input on the topics for each guest in the episodes.

  • Blockchain Event in Unilag: Kenichi presented an upcoming Web3 event at the University of Lagos (Unilag) on November 15, 2024. It would be a good opportunity for people in the SingularityNET community to attend for networking and promotional purposes.

  • Governance Setting Document: Ayo shared a link from Governance WG for team members to drop their thoughts on governance settings via CryptPad, ensuring anonymity for feedback. See https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/ipJrKwnNkw59JlxfG3H4gzcL1qtL0lU5lstf-88XIaI/embed/

  • Feedback from Writers' Workgroup: CJFrankie reported that the Writers' Workgroup meetings have been running smoothly, with no issues outside of the expected ethics. The meeting summaries have accurately captured the discussions.

  • Marketing Guild Weekly Meeting Facilitator: Ayo suggested shuffling the meeting facilitator for the Marketing Guild meetings, as the current setup is becoming monotonous.

  • Ops breakout Budget Concerns: The proposed budget does not seem feasible or sustainable, and proposing a higher budget doesn't appear realistic.

Mascot Initiative: The mascot initiative involves a one-time payment of $200.

Zealot Initiative: The Zealot initiative will run for 30 days, after which its impact will be compared to previous Zealy initiatives to determine the most feasible approach moving forward.

Podcast Initiative: It was suggested to separate the budget requests for the podcast initiative. Although a podcast channel had been set up previously, it never went live.

Marketing Survey: The marketing survey is now ready.

  • Comms Breakout Initiative Updates: General updates were shared on ongoing initiatives, including progress on spotlight contributor and working group projects.

Conference Involvement: The team agreed on participating in an upcoming conference at Unilag, with an estimated attendance of 3,000. This presents a valuable opportunity, but specific details still need to be finalized.

Booth and Marketing: Consideration was given to securing a booth at the event, though there is a need for clarity on the marketing budget, including sponsorship packages and branded merchandise.

Tangible Data and Conversion: Discussions focused on how to convert event participants into tangible data (e.g. creating a group chat), with an emphasis on defining the purpose and value of this conversion.

Budget Considerations: The conversation also touched on understanding budget requirements, particularly for sponsorship and other associated expenses.

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to review the progress updates on each initiative and announce the community engagement initiative, including the submission deadline, in the town hall update presentation.

    • [rationale] This ensures transparency on the ongoing projects and provides members with a clear timeline for their submissions.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed that the organization will participate in the Web3 conference at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), Nigeria.

    • [rationale] This decision leverages the opportunity for networking and promotion, with an expected 3,000 attendees.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Photogee: To compile useful links and documents for tracking progress on various initiatives. [assignee] Photogee [status] in progress

  • [action] Mikasa: To provide updates on social media requests. [assignee] Mikasa [status] in progress

  • [action] Kenichi: To share a document where team members can indicate interest in roles for the podcast initiative. [assignee] Kenichi [status] in progress

  • [action] Kizzy: To have a discussion with Mikasa regarding the unified content calendar before rolling it out to all teams and workgroups next week. [assignee] lord kizzy [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Proposal, community engagement, Facilitation, content calendar, conference, UNILAG, spotlight, budget, marketing survey, podcast, town hall update, Zealot, mascot

  • emotions: Collaborative, Thoughtful, productive, Friendly

Knowledge Base Workgroup

Agenda item 1 - Workgroup Project Management - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • How do we record contributions?

  • How do I know what I am contributing towards?

  • Task Name from Budget Sheet corresponds with Dework Task Template https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oHaNJHd3kH2eCUOThlIQ_9wVjYePTZMYolXSErm3o-o/

  • Should we use next session to review and audit October Dework Tasks?

  • How do we handle quick Administration tasks in this quarter?

Decision Items:

  • We use Dework in Q4

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We use GitHub for the course rewards

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We will attempt to handle multiple smaller action items in breakout rooms after we have the GitBook

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • In sessions we don't update Dework tasks, but have an overview audited and reviewed tasks

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Tevo creates meeting summary and Effiom reviews and publishes it [assignee] Tevo, Effiom [status] todo

Discussion Points:

  • How does the collected data have an effect on GPT?

  • https://chatgpt.com/g/g-5ynQ4fAv6-ambassador-program-knowledge-base-wg-ai-organiser

  • Didn't work as expected; no sign of using or even reading our reasoning. Starts doing even more mistakes when additional commands given to try to use our csv data

  • Might need to create another GPT that tries to compare and validate suggested responses with existing rationale

  • Updating the google sheet template to capture the format data presented in GPT

  • How do we use GPT?

  • Do we continue using Miro Board to visualize our final results?

Decision Items:

  • We don't create another GPT to improve quality. Right now, our focus is to get good enough results on GitBook for others to see

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We continue using same "Organizing Resources" Miro Board; however, we created new sticky for GPT results

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Provide item name and analysis/description and copy the results from GPT to Google Sheet Template https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ykSOOcXzv_fXQg53HBm54ibc_KtUou13g0JYPbvpEp8/ Then Copy template to Organised Resources page as last row, then clear template (but leave the questions) [assignee] everyone [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Create a flowchart about asset movement from source to GitBook - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Where are assets coming from?

  • Who is collecting assets?

  • How do we store assets?

  • How do we organise assets?

  • How do we share assets?

Decision Items:

  • We won't create request templates - currently we have enough items to work with

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: flowchart, Miro Board, GPT, Dework, Project Management

PreviousWeek 41NextWeek 43

Last updated

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