Week 38

Mon 16th Sep - Sun 22nd Sep 2024

Monday 16th September 2024

Treasury Guild

Agenda item 1 - Welcome and Agenda - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Overview of the meeting agenda

  • The highlight of the last session of Treasury Policy WG

  • Which agenda items should be recorded?

Decision Items:

  • Start recording session after Treasury policy discussions

    • [rationale] This is to ensure the recording focused on discussions aligned with the purpose of the Treasury Guild session

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Agenda item 2 - Policy Operations - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Policy Submission: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-tAwCD3vrXNSbUdQApljTVMfFGVDJo6PBdM39CO73Uk/

  • Are there new Policy submissions?

  • Policy feedback: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tlq_125RZp3C_uESRUy7mhYP1q7nbf7jdSE3b3iU46g/

  • Have there been any feedback or enactment for new policies?

  • Updating the color code in the Policy submission sheet and Policy feedback sheet

Decision Items:

  • New policies submitted are shared in the Treasury Guild channel and policies moved to ratification are shared in Decision Making channel on Discord

    • [rationale] Message of policies moved to ratification could lead to decision-making

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Provide feedback on existing policies to progress our rule-making [status] todo

  • [action] Announce the last submitted Policy again [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Review Policy results in ratification and plan next steps - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • How is the new Policy Ratification doing?

  • 2 people submitted consent

  • Should we give it more time?

  • What is the expected quorum?

  • What is the action plan for implementing this if ratified?

Decision Items:

  • Everyone can participate but only core contributors count towards ratification and validation results

    • [rationale] Ratification of policies is a decision-making process

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • 10% of core contributors are needed for a quorum. 4 people out of 6 thought 10% was a good number

    • [rationale] It's hard to get over 20% of core contributors to participate in decision-making processes like budget consenting and this would probably be the case here too

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Publish ratification and decision posts in the Ambassador General Discord channel [status] todo

Agenda item 4 - Review Q4 budgets in general - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Should we ask Guilds and WGs to reduce their budget instead of trying to get consent for the ones submitted?

  • Are we learning from previous iterations?

  • How many core contributors have participated so far?

  • Where and How are Invalid objections decided?

  • How does Abstain affect the validation?

  • Budgeting based on Categories of activities done within the Ambassador Program

  • What is mission Critical and How do we define Mission Critical?

  • NEW IDEA - Emergent Categories with Emergent Budget Precents

Decision Items:

  • If you Object without a valid rationale, this will be removed from the final calculations

    • [rationale] How a valid reason for objection should be structured was defined in the context setting doc for Q4

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Take out abstain from percentage calculations

    • [rationale] Abstaining is there to know how many people viewed the form and proposals

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • The majority percentage calculation for iteration 3 only counts from the total consented and objected

    • [rationale] Abstain is not part of the percentage of who decides as it is more of an acknowledgement

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Include new invalid response examples to upcoming context setting doc [status] todo

Agenda item 5 - Open Topics - General Cost Cutting Discussion - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Possible approaches to budget fitting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kzJ3tyWfK922Za4RqGu0QOM2aUCZ3dl5AYEpJc_kDtM/

  • Should we expect Every WG and Guild to make a new budget sheet that fits to the actual budget-fitting?

  • Q4 Consent (Responses): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q2-njlAwe6QPJYl78XrpXvhjB0v3sU39jN--LEYMKE4/

  • Where and how do we cut the budget for the Treasury Guild?

Decision Items:

  • 2 weeks is not enough to force people to provide new fitted budget

    • [rationale] Based on the timeline of the Q4 budget consent process

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • The budget fitting approach is a good exercise to plan for next quarter

    • [rationale] Most guilds and WGs are already thinking in that direction while preparing their budget

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Regularly review the cost and value of services like the Swarm Treasury Guild to ensure they align with the program's financial goals

    • [rationale] A review of these costs has become a necessity

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Review Treasury Guild Proposal Feedback [status] todo

  • [action] Budget-fitting for Treasury Guild ahead of Q4 [status] todo

  • [action] Create a new policy about budget-fitting requirements [status] todo

  • [action] Miro Board, Policy Submission, Ratification, Budget, Consent, Valid objections, Abstain, Mission critical, Feedback, Quarter 4 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Miro Board, Policy Submission, Ratification, Budget , consent, Valid objections, abstain, Mission Critical, feedback, Quarter 4

  • emotions: educational, interactive, interesting, Brainstorm

Wednesday 18th September 2024

Archives Workgroup

Decision Items:

  • Summary tool redesign: See issue https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/181 - André and Vanessa met on Mon 9th Sept and agreed priorities (see New Summary Tool features https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wxziaDEdMdYeiqv0ecuuygHgfd9a9F18odje_2qaT7g/edit?usp=sharing) and have decided to focus initially on the quicker fixes that will make most difference for documenters.

Some changes have already been made: the interface is more mobile-friendly; there is export to Google doc rather than PDF; fields are now blocks with all the text visible at once, rather than single lines that you need to scroll up and down to see; fields such as who is present, tags, tc can be cleared with one click; and there is a "light" mode (there will be a "dark" mode reinstated for those who prefer it!)

  • [rationale] Focusing on these changes first, because want to focus initially on things that will have the biggest effect on ease of use of the tool.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We decided that the "Open source paradigm" work would be best presented at a Town Hall rather than a separate meeting. Stephen to pick a date in October and let Peter know.

    • [rationale] Because in TH in the past, conversations about open-source have been lively - clearly those who attend find it an interesting topic.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that some of the insights in the "How to make a document community owned" (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hQs4ocUhT6mrvgn-ZjTO7O2aVDm-KEsYIiPaAOQH1Gc/edit?usp=sharing) could be folded into Stephen's presentation on our open-source paradigm

    • [rationale] because the issues raised relate to open-source ethos and culture

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • On the open source docs management work: André has discovered a way to record a reuseable auth token for Google docs

    • [rationale] so he does not have to change the API key every week

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • On our tag taxonomy: this is close to finished, and a controlled vocab will likely be incorporated into the summary tool redesign; we will have an option for "other", so that people can add new tags, but they will not be immediately visible in the Tool - any new tags added will be ratified in Archives meetings.

    • [rationale] To avoid problems with people adding tags that are really similar to existing tags.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Video walkthru of how to use the GitHub Board - see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/116 - task has been handed over to Onyeka with a due date of next meeting (2nd Oct). [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 2 October 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 [assignee] Stephen [QADAO] [due] 2 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Vani to submit the budget and quarterly report by Monday 9th Sept [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 9 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Sucre to finish updating Ambassador gitbook to reflect changes to the Onboarding process by the end of the Quarter [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 30 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to go through all outstanding Issues on the board and check they have the correct milestone [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 2 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: open source, open source ethos, meeting summary tool, API key, Tag taxonomy, community owned, meeting summary tool redesign, Town Hall presentation, Presentation, tags

  • emotions: Organised, cheerful, short

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: Collaboration Skills Database; AJ and Advanceameyew gave the updates on the hosting of the database. The teams haven't yet had a call with Rojo to further discuss this. Advance suggested a beta test within the week before hosting with rojo. AJ noted that the Google sign-in isn't working for now, but the Discord and GitHub sign-ins are good to go.

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Legacy: Kenichi gave the updates, he noted that the backend is done and once that is done, the database will be hosted. He gave a presentation of the legacy website and its features. The SBD (soul-bound token) documentation is ready and uploaded on the GitHub board.

  • New Operations System Deployment: Guillermo announced that the voting system is live and will be up for two weeks. He also spoke on getting feedback from the community for the system and areas of improvements.

Decision Items:

  • We decided on the members that will review the Entity Connections progress so far (Colleen, advanceameyew, kenichi, lordkizzy)

    • [rationale] The guild needs to review the project to know the next steps to take

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Duke to give the presentation of the Ideation Project on Impact of Lingual Differences [assignee] Duke [due] 25 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] kenichi to present the skeletal framework for the Legacy system. [assignee] Kenichi [due] 25 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] AJ and Emmanuel will provide final updates on the skills database proposal [assignee] AJ, Emmanuel(advanceameyaw) [due] 25 September 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] 24 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Lordkizzy to create a group to discuss the review of the entity connections [assignee] lord kizzy [due] 25 September 2024 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Guilds, Tool Development, AI tooling, Operations, Deliverables, Presentation, Documentation, voting, Operations, Entity Connections, soulbound token, operations system, collaboration skills database

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

Knowledge Base Workgroup

Agenda item 1 - Knowledge Base Onboarding and Feedback - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Response Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aepifawXPW_zG5Gd1jt1tveenZorS23mnhFrmuPbtJc/

  • Did we learn something new from the responses?

  • 2 new responses were submitted

  • Does the feedback move a needle for the WG?

  • Did we get improvements?

  • One member learned about us from WIMS

  • In general, our score is improving on the WG purpose

Decision Items:

  • The 1st new feedback won't be rewarded

    • [rationale] We didn't learn anything new from this feedback, it was generic in a way

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • The 2nd feedback will be rewarded

    • [rationale] We learned that this member learned about us from WIMS which was new insight for the WG

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Agenda item 2 - Assign Rewards for previous meetings using Participation Reward Tooling - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • How we used Participation Reward Tooling today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4a2ndoAuGc

  • Context what is the Participation Tool: https://youtu.be/VMSKB79fkbg

  • Check if the fitted reward amount in the prior meeting is fair

  • How do we address the reduced rewards left over from this process?

  • Can the purpose of the tool be modeled differently for each guild and WG?

  • Reward Modeler can use already collected data and analytics to define contribution type for their WG and Guild based on the label names

  • Explaining some of the parameters used in the Tool

  • What does reward import or task creation look like?

  • How do we define task label contribution type?

  • How do Guilds and WGs define their own contribution type?

  • We have been rewarding facilitation with Dework Tasks until now

Decision Items:

  • More members of the WG need to contribute as this would address the rewards wastage concerns

    • [rationale] The main purpose of this tooling is to incentivize contributions, and as more members contribute the allocated rewards won't waste

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Remove operations in the task label for meeting participation. This will unlock labels to be recognized as contributions to future tasks

    • [rationale] This will unlock labels to be recognized as contributions to future tasks

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Create a task for Automation WG - Create a guiding document on how the rewards are calculated. [status] todo

  • [action] Create a task for Automation WG - Create a meeting selector button to further automate the Tool. [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Review Q4 Proposal Status - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Q4 consent responses: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q2-njlAwe6QPJYl78XrpXvhjB0v3sU39jN--LEYMKE4/

  • Review the 2 concerns raised by objectors in Iteration 2

  • The best way to capture our impact in reports

  • Some of the concerns do not make sense, such as "unclear how it adds value to the program." In Poprosal, it's clearly written.

Decision Items:

  • We changed budget details and split GitBook budget items into three smaller differences.

    • [rationale] To address one of the concerns raised by an objector

    • [opposing] None

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Create a feedback form to ask people how they find the Knowledge Base WG organized assets [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Ambassador GitBook, Miro Board, feedback, Rewards, Q4 proposal, concerns, Operations, task labels

  • emotions: educational, funny, interactive, interesting, bit quiet, insightful

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], osmium, esewilliams, Billy, GorgaSiagian, Kenichi, Malik., Photogee, SubZero, TheFreysDeFi, kateri

  • Purpose: Regular meeting of Education Guild. This meeting covered: Budget Request and leftover budget presentation - Budget request concerns discussion

  • Working Docs:

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Minimal Budget Request Submitted

  • Classrooms for 17 spin-off projects completed

  • Automation setup announcement

  • AI For Beginners and Video WG members

  • AI for Beginners Demo startup video

Discussion Points:

  • Slate started the meeting greeting everyone

  • Slate let everybody know that education guild's budget request has been submitted for consent and that education guild will be requesting minimal budget as discussed previously

  • Slate notified everybody that the classrooms for the 17 spin-off projects have been created and are ready to be put into action. We are just waiting for the quizzes to be uploaded so they can be integrated to the classroom platform so we can start the testing for the automation

  • Then it was discussed that Video WG members can assist the education guild when we put the AI for Beginners project to action. Slate reminded Ese to reach out to the Video WG regarding this, and to discuss this potential assistance

  • At the end Osmium showcased his demo video for the AI for Beginners project, which will set up the baseline for the quality for the rest of the videos

Decision Items:

  • Use Video WG members' assistance for the Ai for Beginners project

    • [rationale] most of the group agreed

    • [opposing] Nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Start the integration for the quizzes [assignee] Slate [due] 2 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Start the automation setup [assignee] Slate [due] 2 October 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Reach out to video wg [assignee] esewilliams [due] 25 October 2024 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Presentation, CCCP, q4 2024 Budget, minimal budget, Quarterly Report, ideation, Video WG< Ai for Beginners, spin offs, Google Classroom, quizzes

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.

Thursday 19th September 2024

Onboarding Workgroup

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.

  • Town Hall Updates

  • Onboarding Journeys.

  • Q4 Budget Draft and Objections from the community.

  • Workgroup closure

  • Gorga’s allegations.

Decision Items:

  • WG Closure: The WG is temporarily closed to new members, and this was queried in some of the feedback we got in the consent process for our Q4 budget. A line will be added to the Q3 quarterly report to explain the reasons for closure.

    • [rationale] Mainly to manage budget constraints, to focus on integrating existing members effectively, and to avoid overloading the WG with inactive members when there are not enough tasks to go round.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Other Q4 budget objections: We agreed that objections to our Q4 budget seem to be mainly due to misreadings of our Q3 quarterly report (for example, raising concerns about unspent Q3 budget, when Q3 was not over at the time we wrote the report, so naturally there was budget remaining; misunderstandings of the purpose of the WG and thinking that meetings are onboarding sessions; etc). We noted that in order to be valid, an objection should be about things that would cause harm to the Program, which most of the objections we received are not. Nevertheless we agreed to add a few lines to the Q3 report on each of the issues raised. See Onboarding WG objections summary https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dfpDaS8rNmsDbHAZipDG3XQ5BEfMmlRblq_328jbOhM/edit?usp=sharing

    • [rationale] Although some of the concerns raised do not appear to be valid, it is easy enough to answer them, so we might as well do so.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Following a meeting earlier today (19th Sept) about Gorga’s allegations against the WG, it was agreed that Gorga will apologise through the WG Discord channel in writing and verbally through the WG meeting. If Gorga makes any further unfounded and untrue allegations, about individuals, or the Onboarding WG as a whole, or any other WG, or the Program as a whole, he will be sanctioned with a temporary suspension from the group for a period of time to be determined, and he will not be eligible to apply for paid assignments. The various allegations are listed here https://docs.google.com/document/d/140EUeShYZ_fKjErEoIT4PUFmeFfYI7o6goSf9Tj8WpE/edit?usp=sharing

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • For the forthcoming GitHub project management training on 7th Oct, we agreed to coordinate with the Marketing Guild through Lord_kizzy to publicise the event; and for Photogee to create timestamps of the video recording for publication.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Duke to showcase the onboarding journey infographics in the next meeting. [assignee] Duke [due] 26 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Colleen will facilitate next week's meeting, and Onize will document, and will mentor Jenn. [assignee] CollyPride, Onize, sakujennbornean [due] 26 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Tuso will give Onboarding WG's town hall updates on the 24th of September. [assignee] Tuso. [due] 24 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani will add clarification to the Q3 quarterly report about the issues covered in the Objections Summary https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dfpDaS8rNmsDbHAZipDG3XQ5BEfMmlRblq_328jbOhM/edit?usp=sharing [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 23 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani will send the video of our documentation training session to Tevo, who will add it to YouTube [assignee] CallyFromAuron, Tevo [due] 26 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Peter to add GitHub Project Management Training to the calendar [assignee] PeterE [due] 26 September 2024 [status] in progress

  • [action] Kateri to grant access for members to add comments to the q3 Quarterly report and to also make the necessary corrections to the report [assignee] kateri [due] 26 September 2024 [status] todo

  • [action] Onyeka to coordinate with marketing guild team to create graphics and publicize the GitHub training event. Photogee to timestamp the recording [assignee] lord kizzy, Photogee [due] 7 October 2024 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: TH Update , Budget , Onboarding Journey Scripts, skills matrix, q4 2024 budget, q3 2024 quarterly report, consent process, objections, budget objections, GitHub training, training, Marketing Guild

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

Friday 20th September 2024

Writers Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Kenichi [facilitator], Cjfrankie [documenter], Kenichi, cjfrankie, LadyTempestt, Gorga Siagian, Emmanuel Isaac, AJ, Evelyn Robert, Eric Davies

  • Purpose: Weekly meeting of the writers' workgroup.

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

Kenichi welcomed everyone to the meeting. Cjfrankie pointed out that he had completed the Q4 proposed draft for the Substack newsletter. Kenichi began to share his screen, and we glanced through Cjfrankie’s draft, and he shared more clarity and possible ways we could improve it.

Secondly, Kenichi added that he’d be doing some research to find some articles for the board; he mentioned that this article would mark the completion of our Q3 KPI of 45 publications. Momentarily, he mentioned that the Zealy is 7 days away from completion; he then urged the scribblers to give their suggestions and ideas towards Zealy.

We also had a conversation about the Friday trivia game. It is very clear that the same set of people are always winning; it’s okay if they’re playing the game fairly! Kenichi shared his vision of purchasing a paid version of the Quizcord bot, which allows for private trivia; we could also check for people who aren’t playing the game fairly. By doing this, people won’t lose interest in the trivia.

Lastly, we went over the Q4 budget concerns that were raised by the objectors. Some of the concerns were that the budget was too high. We talked about how budget reduction could slow down processes in the WG. From the Zealy and Twitter side of things, we’ve been able to achieve some remarkable feats. Some of the core elements in the WG still run on a free plan, e.g. Zealy, which limits the WG’s workspace and gives us no access to analytics.

Decision Items:

  • Following a discussion on the Quizcord bot, we have decided to try out the bot by getting a paid plan, which goes for $9 per quarter.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Cjfrankie to chase Gorga and Ines to add their drafts to the community page. [assignee] Cjfrankie [due] 27 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Kenichi to chase AJ and Kareem concerning their test documents and have them sent to the scribes for peer review. [assignee] Kenichi [due] 27 September 2024 [status] done

  • [action] Kenichi to add some tasks to the board after conducting his research! [assignee] Kenichi [due] 27 September 2024 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Quizcord bot, Peer-review, Zealy, Twitter, Triva, Q4 2024 budget, Q2 2024 KPI

  • emotions: insightful, Discursive, speedy, calm

PreviousWeek 37NextWeek 39

Last updated

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