Week 37

Mon 9th Sep - Sun 15th Sep 2024

Monday 9th September 2024

Treasury Policy WG

Agenda item 1 - Welcome, Workgroup Updates, and Meeting Agenda - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • How best to report activities of the WG in Quarter 4?

Decision Items:

  • Today's meeting is the last session of Policy WG

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Policy Operations to be carried over to the Treasury Guild [status] todo

  • [action] The ratification deliverable is planned for the end of the month; the final update will be in the Q4 Report [status] todo

Agenda item 2 - Drafting of Policy Ratification Google Form - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • How best to draft the form?

  • What should be the content of the form?

  • The ratification quorum decision was made in the last WG meeting.

Decision Items:

  • The Treasury Guild agreed to move the policy "Slow Start" to the final stage

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Based on how the form was drafted, every new policy would require a new form during ratification

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Share the Policy Ratification form in the decision-making channel in Discord [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Review New Policy submission - sentiment metrics - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Understanding the rule activation dependencies

  • Implementation End time deliberation

Decision Items:

  • The current version of the policy is not acceptable

Action Items:

  • [action] Include policy related topics (i.e. new policy submission and status of old policies) in next Treasury Guild agenda [status] todo

  • [action] Draft a publication message about new policies [assignee] Tevo [due] 16 September 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Miro Board, Treasury Policy, Ratification, Sentiment

Strategy Guild

Narrative:

INTRODUCTION - The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the draft Strategy Guild Q3 Report and Q4 Budget proposal

ACTION ITEMS CHECKBOXES FROM THE LAST MEETING - Ayo led this. Items DONE were closed and others were left OPEN:

  1. Continue contribution to the Guild’s working document [OPEN]

  2. Gorga to create a poll in Discord for other people to vote on the preferred meeting schedule for the guild [DONE]

  3. Effiom to draft and share last meeting summary [DONE]

  4. Yemi to follow up with other Gs/WGs representatives who are yet to fill out the form [DONE]

  5. Continue working on the Strategy Guild Q3 Report and Q4 Budget proposal async [DONE]

  6. Adopt Last Meeting Notes - 02.09.2024 [DONE]

ONBOARD NEW MEMBERS/CORE MEMBER ROLL CALL - Since the last meeting, Photogee met all the core membership requirements but no new person indicated interest in the document.

Ayo advised those who have indicated interest in becoming members of the Guild but are yet to meet all the requirements, to ensure to update their records as they meet the pending requirements.

GORGA ALLEGATIONS ON PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE GUILD - Gorga highlighted his concerns which were mostly about the Q4 budget:

  • The Q4 budget doesn’t completely explain how tasks will be carried out

  • Q3 wasn’t transparent citing the example of the availability of the meeting notes which were meant to be made available in Discord before the meeting but are only shared in the meetings

  • Hopes that in Q4 other members will get to prepare meeting agendas, facilitate meetings, and also create meeting notes

Ayo responded to these claims, citing that:

  • The Guild restarted its operations in Q3, and just like other Guilds in which Gorga is a member, he got to contribute in the following quarter and not the first quarter he joined

  • Members who were contributing majorly were those that understood the Q3 budget and were present during the approval process, hence it was easier for them to take part in the activities this quarter

  • He stated that members were asked to indicate facilitation interest in the working doc, and a roster was being worked on ahead of Q4 using that list

  • Gorga contributed to the research and was rewarded as a representative of the WWG during the Q3 workshop

THE DRAFT Q3 REPORT AND Q4 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS - The Guild’s meeting has been updated to capture the new Bi-weekly schedule. The workshop initiative will continue based on the success of the Q3 workshop.

A.O.B - Ayo expressed gratitude to the participants and provided an overview of the plan for the next sessions.

Decision Items:

  • Facilitation interest has been suspended, and a roster will be created ahead of Q4

    • [rationale] This would allow for time to create the roster for Q4

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • The Guild’s meeting would be Bi-weekly going forward, and weekly when workshops are ongoing

    • [rationale] This was the result from the poll in Discord

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Continue discussions on the Strategy Guild Q3 Report and Q4 Budget proposal async

    • [rationale] Since meetings are now Bi-weekly, we would need to have discussions based on the outcome of the consent process

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Continue contribution to the Guild’s working document [status] todo

  • [action] Intending members to update their records in the working document as they meet the Core membership requirements [status] todo

  • [action] Proper documentation of Gorga’s allegation for further discussions [status] todo

  • [action] Effiom to draft and make meeting notes available [status] todo

  • [action] Submit the Strategy Guild Q3 Report and Q4 Budget before the deadline [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guild Membership, Workshop, Core Membership, Q3 Report, Feedback Systems, Q4 Proposal and Budget, Meeting Schedule, Allegations, Facilitation, Documentation

  • emotions: inclusive, decisive, Collaborative, fun, interesting

Wednesday 11th September 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

  • Follow Up > New Operations System Deployment: Announcements and Follow Up actions, Draft and Set Voting System for Community to select Q4 new proposals, Discuss further upgrades and Challenges

  • Kenichi on NDA for the Legacy project.

Discussion Points:

  • Review of last meeting summary Action Items: Lordkizzy went through the action items for the previous meeting

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: EC-Entity-Connections; There were no updates from Waka on this project.

  • Discussions on Guild Approach and Operating System: Waka presented his concerns on the new operation system and they were addressed by the guild

  • New Operations System Deployment: Guillermo gave an update on the voting process and Rojo is currently drafting out the voting system

  • Discussions on an NDA for the Legacy project: kenichi presented the NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT doc to the group and he has added the deliverables for Q1 milestone to the project repository. Here is the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RaCoXN3fhPwDxqhTTuefbOQLegAvQbCbUNE9GTg_NgM/edit

Action Items:

  • [action] Lordkizzy to meet up with Duke as regards to the presentation of the Ideation Project on Impact of Lingual Differences [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 11 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] kenichi to present the Skeletal framework for the Legacy system. [assignee] Kenichi [due] 11 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Team members to update the Repository with a documentation of the progress so far [assignee] AJ, Advanceameyaw, Kenichi, Rojo, WaKa [due] 11 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Guillermo to disburse funds to Rojo for completion of the Web 3 Contributions Dashboard project [assignee] Guillermo [due] 11 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Kenichi and Guillermo to have a call to discuss the report on the deliverable for Q1 milestone on legacy [assignee] Guillermo, Kenichi [due] 11 September 2024 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guilds, Tool Development, AI tooling, Operations, Deliverables, Presentation, Documentation, voting, NDA, Operations, Contributions Dashboard, Impact of Lingual Differences, operations system,

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

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], osmium, WaKa, Clement Umoh, Merryman, GorgaSiagian, DevonHardy, malik, esewilliams, Kenichi, lord kizzy

  • Purpose: - Regular meeting of Education Guild. This meeting covered: Quiz Automation Time Addition demo - Presentation Series

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Quiz Automation Time Addition demo

  • Presentation Series

Discussion Points:

  • Slate greeted everyone, then started off the meeting by discussing the projects that education guild is taking forward to next quarter

  • Slate gave a demo of the time addition to the quizzes. There was also a discussion on how much time should be allotted to each quiz, and multiple suggestions were given by educators

  • Kenichi presented the "presentation series" project. Multiple modules were discussed. Slate mentioned that this project was left out of the budget because the budget for it was not presented during the finalizing of the Guild's Q4 budget request

Decision Items:

  • Start of the poll with the time allotment for each quiz

    • [rationale] most of the group agreed

    • [opposing] Nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Slate to start the work on Google Classrooms

    • [rationale] nil

    • [opposing] nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Add the remaining quizzes to the quiz makers sheet [assignee] Slate [due] 13 September 2024 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Presentation, CCCP, Q4 2024 Budget Request, Q3 2024 Quarterly Report, ideation

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.

Thursday 12th September 2024

Onboarding Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Duke Peter [facilitator], Cjfrankie [documenter], LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron, Eric Davies, Sucre n Spice, Gorga Siagian, Onize, Cjfrankie, PG, PeterE, Colleen, Ayo, lordkizzy, Mikasa, guillermolucero, hogantuso, Ade-williams, Mostlfa Lotfy, kateri, daniel effiom

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

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Agreeing the minutes of the last meeting.

  • Skillshare matrix.

  • Action items from the last meeting.

  • Facilitation and documentation next time.

  • Onboarding Journeys.

  • Q4 Budget Draft.

  • Workgroup Closure: We talked about having a threshold or cap for the number of new people we can onboard into the workgroup.

  • Contributors to edit documents in Q4.

  • Gorga’s Allegations.

Decision Items:

  • WG Closure: We already have enough contributors in the WG, and the proposed budget for Q4 2024 wouldn’t cover more WG activities to give tasks for new people; plus, there is a concern that the total Ambassador program budget for Q4 is high, so significant budget-fitting will be needed. In light of such, we have decided to temporarily close the WG and consider re-opening at the end of Q1 2025.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed that for the budget-line on document editing, two people will be assigned to edit each document we create in Q4. We will aim to select one person who has done similar work before (e.g. report writing), and use the Skillshare Matrix to select another individual who has shown interest in working with the topic of the document.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We decided that Colleen will lead the “GitHub Project Management Training" session on Mon 7th October 2024 by 13:00 UTC.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Following a discussion about Gorga’s allegations against the WG, we have decided to meet on Thurs 19th September 2024 by 11 AM UTC to discuss the issues. Several people (Peter, Tuso, Duke, Kateri, Vani, Onize, Love, LordKizzy and CJFrankie) confirmed their availability.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Duke and Cjfrankie to showcase the onboarding journey infographics in the next meeting.

[assignee] Cjfrankie, Duke [due] 19 September 2024 [status] done

To carry over for next meeting:

  • “Q4 Budget Draft.” Come the next meeting, we will look deep into the budget to see how it can be fitted.

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Skillshare Matrix, onboarding journeys, Q4 2024 budget, q3 2024 budget fitting, budget fitting, Workgroup closure, Contributors to edit docs, Gorga’s allegations

  • emotions: informative, Discursive, forward-thinking, insightful, Friendly

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

NOTE: this is a detailed summary, because those present were keen for all the ideas and insights to be documented so we don’t lose them.

We noted that due to the recent AGIX price rise, the lowering percentage for budget fitting will be a little less than anticipated, but still high, at around 28%.

No prior items on the agenda, so Peter opened it to the floor.

Sucre n Spice raised the question of problems with the current budget process (unreasonably high requests leading to a difficult budget-fitting process; etc). In the past we used agreed percentage allocations to each WG (see spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h6yTQGvkNhp-88a3wRCTxpKTpC24d4kIOWj1mpWrmxU/edit?usp=sharing for details) and WGs simply had to work within their agreed allocation - would it work better to return to this? If we did, the arguments would be about what percentage each WG should have, rather than about budget totals - but at least there is a constraint (it has to add up to 100%), whereas the current process has none, and WGs are expanding their budget requests ad lib. She noted that the current process was always intended as an experiment, so we can change it.

Points raised:

  • We could shift to AGIX-based allocations rather than USD (Peter) Might make things easier, as it's the coin we work with (Kevin); but people think in fiat, not AGIX, so it's less intuitive. Also, budgeting in AGIX shifts the burden of token price fluctuation onto the WG or individual, not the Program overall, which feels unfair. (Vani)

  • Or, fixed prices for tasks, as in DeepFunding, where it's either $10 or $20 depending on the task. (Peter) But that takes away WG autonomy - a WG should be free to pay more for a task, e.g. documentation, if they choose. WGs can spend their allocation as they see fit, then give a quarterly report so others can check if they think the WG used the money well. (Vani)

  • Have tiers for the percentage allocations? because some WGs are cheaper than others to run. (Vani) But the WGs who have historically requested and got higher budgets would end up in a higher tier, regardless of how justified their high budget was (Peter). And what would be the criteria for allocating a WG's percentage? If some WGs historically have asked for more budget, do we question / examine that? And do we assess their outputs, rather than just basing it on an average of what they have requested in previous Quarters? (Clement)

  • Have a pot for WGs to use if they go over their budget but they're doing good work (Kevin)

  • When AGIX price was higher, WGs got very ambitious - but now price is lower, WGs should recognise that they can only afford basic operational costs plus one or two projects. Or, if they want to continue doing the same work, they have to pay less for tasks. (Sucre)

  • Let’s decide which of these suggested changes are "safe to try", and try them out, rather than just talking about them. The current budget process isn't working, in that it takes up too much of our time. (Love)

  • First step should be a retrospective of the whole of this budget process, over several Quarters, and analyse how it has affected the way workgroups operate. Then collate all the ideas for alternatives, so we can properly discuss them (Vani)

  • We might need to merge some WGs; and we need to stop proliferating new ones. We now have 21 WGs; each of them adds budget overhead. (Sucre). We should have due process for starting a WG - we can’t afford unlimited WGs. (LadyTempestt). Merge WGs, especially ones that are just subgroups of the same guild; and /or reassess whether we even need some groups, in terms of their outputs or in terms of our overall direction for 2025. What we need will change over time - some WGs might need to end to allow others to start (Duke).

  • Be careful about consolidating WGs, because decentralisation. Each WG has its own character; let’s not force people to consolidate with others who might be superficially similar, but are approaching it in different ways and learning from each others’ different approaches (Vani)

  • We should be more output-driven: e.g. end-of-quarter meetings where WG leads explain and justify their budgets (Duke)

  • The number of WGs might be a red herring - as long as they’re low-budget, and temporary, it might be OK. (Vani) But in practice, workgroups don’t end once they’ve done a job. So probably, a WG once started is here to stay (Sucre)

  • Budget caps? rather than the current “ask for any amount, and then do budget-fitting”? Because currently some WGs barely reduce their ask in response to lower token price, and nothing is said. Caps could tame this, and could be determined based on outputs, and/ or the Program’s overall priorities. (Duke)

  • What do we value and want to fund? The discussion could get poisonous if we’re not careful, but maybe we need to discuss it. There are divergent opinions and no right answer; percentage allocations would mean different WGs can do what they value, without a lengthy process of everyone having to approve every detail of others’ work. (Vani)

  • Split it into “operational” budget and “project” budget? All WGs get the same for the operational costs of running a group, but different amounts for projects (Sucre). “Project” allocation could be based on an average of what the WG has spent over the last 4 Quarters; and it would be what the Program can afford to give, not whatever the WG asks for. The WG will then do what it can with what it’s given (LadyTempestt), Some WGs spend a lot on tasks that are not really important to the Program. Can they be honest enough to cut those tasks? Or do we need to help them recognise it, via a consent process? (Sucre).

  • “Operational cost” and “project cost” might not work for some WGs. For those who produce content, it’s all “operational”. So tiers, based on average budgets in the past, would be best. There are already de facto “tiers” in place - some WGs have had consistently high spends and others consistently much lower (LordKizzy).

  • There might be problems with averaging out the last few Quarters. Firstly, some WGs didn’t exist then; also, some WGs did more project work and requested more budget when token price was higher, but cut back when it was lower, whereas others haven’t cut back. And finally, some WGs overpriced certain tasks when token price was high, just to use more budget.

  • The last time a percentage allocation system was used, there were broad tiers (LordKizzy). But today, we have different needs, and different WGs might be in the “top” tier - so we need to assess it based on what we’re now focused on, not just on what a WG got in the past. I’m not sure how far back we should go (Colleen). I feel token price is the crux of the issue. If AGIX was at $1, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. So if we get a tier system in place and then token price rises, would we revert to the current system? And should we start submitting budgets in AGIX? (Clement). In Onboarding WG, although we submit our budget in dollars, we work it out based on an assumed exchange rate (Sucre). If we did all calculate our budgets in AGIX, we would know what we have, whether token price goes up or down (LordKizzy)

To be discussed next meeting, on Tues 17th. (Love).

Discussion Points:

  • Problems with current budget process - should we move to a percentage allocation? or some other approach?

  • Holding a retrospective not just on this Quarter's budget process, but on our current budget process as a whole, across several Quarters, to assess how well it is working.

  • Proliferation of workgroups - no more new workgroups, especially when they are subgroups of the same Guild? Or a better-defined process for starting WGs? And/or assessing WGs' outputs, to see if we need that WG

  • How to decide what we value and want to fund. Can we all agree which WGs to have, based on the Program's overall aims? or are there too many differences of opinion on what is needed to achieve the Program's aims?

  • Do we need to assess WG outputs more formally in order to determine budgets?

  • "Operational" vs "project" budgets?

  • Budget tiers, and budget caps? or not?

  • Should we budget in AGIX or USD?

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to hold a retrospective about the entire budget process over several quarters

    • [rationale] to assess whether it is working, and to talk about what the problems are and what might need to be changed, since many people seem to be finding the current process less than ideal.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed to collate all the suggestions for a process for starting new WGs, and discuss them

    • [rationale] because there are several suggestions in place but none of them has been properly agreed

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed to discuss further on the idea of tiers and percentage allocations

    • [rationale] This will be informed by our retrospectives on how the current budget process is working

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We recognised that there are different opinions on how tiers, if we used them, would be determined

    • [rationale] some feel it should be primarily based on averaging what WGs have spent in the past, over several Quarters

    • [opposing] others feel that priorities for the program as a whole might have changed over time, so what we want to fund might have changed

Action Items:

  • [action] Lady Tempestt to create a shared doc and invite all WGs to give retrospective info on how the current budget process has affected their WGs. To be discussed at next WG Sync call on 3rd Oct (after current budget consent process is over) [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 26 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Next WG Sync call (October 3, 2024 10AM UTC) to be put on the calendar [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 13 September 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: budget process, AGIX or USD, Budget fitting, budget percentage allocations, budget tiers, tiers, what do we value, aims of Ambassador program, token price fluctuation, operational budgets, project budgets, workgroup autonomy, safe to try, new budget processes, retrospective, priorities, budget priorities, new workgroups process, merging Workgroups, workgroup outputs

  • emotions: Casual, talkative, free to discuss, long, participatory, wide-ranging, not decisive, Discursive

Friday 13th September 2024

Video Workgroup

Discussion Points:

  • UPDATE from the task manager, ZALFRED. He created tasks for the approved topics for video creation for this quarter. He also updated the KPI sheet with the video links ready for uploading, and had an operational call with MALIK and LORD KIZZY on the smooth communication with the review team.

  • UPDATE from the social media manager, OEP: 4 long videos have been uploaded to all social media platforms and are having a good number of engagements so far. He also mentioned the challenges he's facing due to delay.

  • UPDATE from Zealy by DEVON: he mentioned that he'll be sending out more tasks from Monday as the sprint comes to an end.

  • Reviewing and discussions on the last Governance workgroup meeting by LORD KIZZY, presenting the questions and challenges discussed about the video workgroup pertaining to the numbers of videos created, budget fitting, and approval for Q4 budject proposal.

  • Presentation on navigating the new tool for social media by ROJO: he gave a comprehensive explanation on how to navigate the tool to post seamlessly on various platforms. He suggested to introduce LINKEDIN AND MASTODON as part of the new social platform added to the role.

Decision Items:

  • We are adopting MASTODON as a new social platform for the video workgroup.

  • Collective operational call on the challenges that workgroup members are facing in order to perform their tasks properly

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] We decided that Devon will keep the Zealy role for one more month, while we experiment on the time impact of the social media automation tool on the Social Media Management role [assignee] devon [status] todo

  • [action] ROJO will take up the social media manager role. The allocation hasn't been decided since we said we are going to experiment this month and decide after that. [assignee] Rojo [status] todo

  • [action] All members to join the next Governance meeting. [assignee] All Members [status] todo

  • [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

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Rewards, Budget fitting, Zealy, Zealy quest, Zealy Updates, Collaboration, Roles, mentorship, governance WG, budget fitting, Mastodon, LinkedIn

  • emotions: Organised, informative, interactive, productive

Marketing Guild

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Ayo [facilitator], Eric Davies [documenter], Ayo, Eric Davies, Photogee, esewilliams, Advanceameyaw, Cjfrankie, Kareem, hamzat, malik, lord kizzy, Mikasa, Kenichi

  • Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting

Discussion Points:

  • Q3 Report: CJ Frankie has completed the Q3 report.

  • Community Initiative: Graphics team have successfully developed an initial design for our community initiative.

  • Q4 Budget: Q4 budget has been submitted by Lord kizzy

  • Q4 Budget: General position of our budget within the ecosystem

  • Governance Structure: Discussion on the need for a better governance structure for the Ambassador Program as a whole.

Decision Items:

  • Marketing guild will propose improvements to the governance structure (ambassador program improvement proposal).

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • All ideas will be presented to the workgroup before the proposal is sent out

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Kenichi to begin adding everyone to the materials for the Notion migration. [assignee] Kenichi [status] in progress

  • [action] Ayo to put together his thoughts in the form of a proposal for the governance system. [assignee] Ayo [status] in progress

  • [action] All members should fine-tune their thoughts and submit to Kenichi on the proposal for the governance system.

[assignee] All Members, Kenichi [status] in progress

  • [action] Kenichi to coordinate people to work on the review structure for committee proposals. [assignee] Kenichi [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Governance, Ambassador Program marketing, Q4 2024 budget, Notion, Proposal

  • emotions: Thoughtful, engaging, Deliberative, differing opinions, good to hear differing opinions

Saturday 14th September 2024

Gamers Guild

  • Type of meeting: Biweekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], devon [documenter], Gorga Siagian, hotasiro, martinsoki, malik, CollyPride, SubZero, scarecrow, hufiumer69, rebel, Tevo

  • Purpose: The meeting centered around a demonstration of various models and tools in Roblox. Participants showcased their progress, discussed improvements, and explored the use of specific plugins to enhance their designs.

Discussion Points:

  • Slate outlined the meeting agenda

  • Slate started the meeting by demonstrating the use of a plugin called Scene Tools on Roblox. He highlighted how this plugin could be used to create spinning objects for decoration. By showing how a part could be made to rotate upon its axis, Slate emphasized the ease of using Scene Tools to make workgroups in Roblox appear more dynamic. He further demonstrated how to add an image (such as an NFT) to the part and how to scale and position the image label. However, Slate encountered a minor issue when using GIFs, which the plugin couldn’t load properly. He showed how the part, when decorated with infographics and light rays, could create an eye-catching element in a virtual workspace.

  • Rebel shared his work on the building model of the Dework PBL Workgroup. He had made changes from the previous iteration, including adding a second floor and designing various functional spaces such as an entrance, meeting room, and classroom. Rebel highlighted the use of teleporters for navigation between floors, using a proximity prompt for interaction. He also demonstrated the design of a computer lab, aquarium, and other virtual elements. There was a brief discussion about an overlay message on the screen that needed to be removed, but overall, Rebel received positive feedback for his design.

  • Malik presented his model of the Education Guild workgroup. Malik explained the various sections he had built, including an entry section with an NPC to welcome users, a meeting schedule board, and a digital twin representation based on the Twin Protocol. He also created an ideation room, initially meant for an AI project, but later adjusted to serve as a space for brainstorming and initiatives like the AI for Beginners project. Malik had also included infographics, but ran into some challenges with implementing rotating elements, for which Slate had offered earlier assistance. The Education Guild Building got finalized.

  • Scarecrow showcased his Treasury Guild model, which was designed to resemble a bank, fitting the theme of treasury management. He walked through the design of a parking lot, meeting areas, a cash counter, and a security vault. Scarecrow used NPCs to represent key members of the guild, with each NPC placed strategically in the model to depict the work they do within the guild. He also discussed future plans for expanding the model, possibly to the second floor.

  • Lord Kizzy provided input regarding the Treasury Guild workgroup, discussing the structure of two sub-workgroups: Treasury Automation and Treasury Policy. He suggested these could be housed on different floors, but was unsure about the logistics due to the lack of documentation and the newness of the groups. He explained that while the Treasury Automation group was a temporary project, the Treasury Policy group would likely be more permanent. This led to a discussion on how best to accommodate these within Scarecrow’s existing model.

  • Colleen joined towards the end of the meeting and provided an update on the R&D Guild workgroup. She mentioned that she had not been able to get a response from her partner OEP, but was willing to continue development. Slate suggested that Gorga (their mentor) could assist Colleen in moving the project forward.

  • Slate demonstrated another useful plugin called Archimedes. This plugin is used to create circular arrangements of parts, which is typically difficult to achieve in Roblox. Slate walked through how to spawn parts and use the plugin to form perfect circles, which could be useful in a variety of design contexts. He also mentioned another plugin, 3D Text, which could be used to create 3D labels for workgroups, adding a professional touch to virtual environments

  • Slate introduced the design of the VR map for the game, featuring three layers: a city, a river with a bridge, and Ambassador University. Players start in the city, where they earn AGIX currency by completing tasks, before moving to the university to finish quests and gain admission. The map development will utilize six baseplates and will require two best modelers to assist Slate with development of the city, river, and university sections. Players can explore all areas freely, but passes can be bought for faster progression. Slate also mentioned the potential to create portals linking different games or spin-off projects after players complete the Ambassador program.

Decision Items:

  • Malik to remove a joke in the dialogue box from his workgroup.

    • [rationale] It had not been well-received by some members.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Rebel needs to resolve an issue with an overlay message that appears on top of his workgroup model in Roblox.

    • [rationale] It felt like a watermark.

  • the Treasury Automation and Treasury Policy groups would be part of the Treasury Guild model, but the exact placement (whether on one floor or two) would be determined based on further exploration by Scarecrow.

    • [rationale] These two groups are permanent according to Tevo and linked to the treasury system.

Action Items:

  • [action] Animation & Dialogue System - Education Guild [assignee] malik, hufiumer69 [due] 28 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Department Creation - Treasury Guild [assignee] martinsoki, scare-crow [due] 28 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Department Creation - Archives Workgroup [assignee] GorgaSeagian, kateri [due] 28 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Department Creation - Dework PBL [assignee] rebel, Photogee [due] 28 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Department Creation - R&D Guild [assignee] oep, CollyPride [due] 28 September 2024 [status] in progress

Game Rules:

Game: Last Man Standing Battle Royale Participants: Devon, Malik, Rebel, Slate, Hufiumer, Scarecrow, Hotasiro, Subzero.

Leaderboard:

  • 1st Rebel

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Roblox, metaverse, department creation, work updates, mentorship, Animation, RobloxPlugIns, Map creation

  • emotions: Friendly, Collaborative, informative, Building, contributive

  • games played: Battle Royale

PreviousWeek 36NextWeek 38

Last updated

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