Week 14
Mon 31st Mar - Sun 6th Apr 2025
Last updated
Mon 31st Mar - Sun 6th Apr 2025
Last updated
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, AshleyDawn, Jeffrey Ndarake, Maxmilez, Évéline Trinité, Alfred Itodele, LordKizzy, AJ, Effiom
Purpose: Regular weekly GovWG meeting
Working Docs:
The Governance Workgroup discussed two major issues which are: Handling objections in decision-making and Dealing with budget cuts due to falling token prices.
We suggested a more structured way to address objections, either in meetings or asynchronously. Vani raised an issue about people consenting and not giving comments about why they are consenting. She feels it will be an issue amongst the workgroup. “People are not saying what they feel because we’ve gotten rid of anonymity”(Vani). Peter also stated that if people are objecting and not saying the reasons for their objections then the objection seems irrelevant. Peter offered to help facilitate discussions and improve communication with better note-taking.
We suggested that the ongoing nature of the feedback form could allow for further clarification from objectors. We also acknowledged that the removal of anonymity might be discouraging honest feedback.
Budget concerns were a big topic, as the group's Q2 budget dropped by 33%. We explored solutions like adjusting payment schedules or delaying payments until prices recover. Vani also pointed out that we shouldn’t respond to low token price by immediately going into volunteerism. We also noted that budget cuts were hurting participation, making governance harder to manage.
To improve discussions, We proposed unpaid facilitation to help members gain experience, but others worried this might lower attendance. A rotating facilitator system was considered to balance participation and budget concerns.
As the meeting ended, We focused on budget adjustments, clearer documentation, and the upcoming Town Hall for further discussions.
How do we resolve workgroups that have objections?
Is there a need to cut the governance workgroups Q2 budget?
What will be the impact of the current token price on the governance workgroup budget?
We suggested that If a workgroup has objections, we’ll work with them to find a solution instead of simply stating there's no budget.
[rationale] It would be unsatisfactory to say that a workgroup doesn’t exit for the quarter.
[opposing]
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
There was a suggestion that we reduce expenses on Facilitating, documenting and on other tasks as well.
[rationale] This was because of the low token price and concerns around the budget.
[opposing] The Workgroup objected to the idea of not paying people for a work done. And noted that there should be a balance.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We decided to cut down the expenses on facilitation to Zero to help the workgroup understand their financial needs.
[rationale] The decision aims to preserve funds and reassess budget priorities, while adapting to market conditions.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Vani to create a roster for meeting facilitation in Q2, sharing it between the 8 people who volunteered [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 2 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo will share the amount of people who replied to the consent forms in the next meeting. [assignee] guillermolucero [status] todo
[action] Peter will facilitate sessions to address objections if someone receives more than 20% objections. [assignee] PeterE [status] todo
topics covered: consent process, Q2 2025 budget, facilitation roster, Participation in governance
emotions: informative, Quiet, Only a few of those present spoke
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], André, CallyFromAuron, Stephen [QADAO], Jeffrey Ndarake, AshleyDawn, UKnowZork
Purpose: Regular monthly meeting of the Archives WorkGroup in the SingularityNET Ambassador program
Working Docs:
We noted that our Q2 2025 budget was approved in the first consent round - but, due to current low token price, we agreed not to submit issues for payment for any pending tasks for Q1 or Q2, to see if token price improves. We'll reassess at the next meeting on 7th May if not before.
[rationale] The Q2 budget was calculated at the agreed exchange rate of $0.30 and AGIX is now at $0.20; so we will be unable to fulfil everything in it unless AGIX price rises a bit.
[opposing] We considered the idea of taking from the WG's reserves, but agreed that doing so at a time of low token price is not a good idea.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We noted that a problem has arisen because some of the corrections made to meeting summaries haven't been added to the database, but are only showing up in the GitBook version of the Archive (because Vani accidentally made the changes in the wrong part of the summary tool interface). The database should be the "source of truth", so André has created scripts to track the differences so they can be corrected. See https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/249
This also gives a way to see what kinds of things tend to get corrected when auditing summaries. Some are minor proofreading or formatting corrections, which are not significant in terms of meaning; but others are factual or structural changes, which likely would affect how a graph RAG determines meaning. So we noted that it is useful to have these differences visible, for reference and to be able to see what kinds of things got corrected - so we will save these data examples to a repo for future reference.
We also noted that of course this auditing process will no longer be done in Q2, because we have decided to NOT correct meeting summaries at all in Q2 as an experiment.
We may find that using a graph-based process to interrogate the Archives will mean that most of the errors that people make in summaries do not matter much, and the graph process will still enable us to extract meaning even if people are not confident documenters, and our uncorrected summaries are factually inaccurate (as many of them are). So by the end of Q2 2025, we will want to check whether we see any substantial difference between Q2 data (which will be uncorrected) and the rest of the Archives. If we don't see this, however, then being able to see the kinds of corrections that were made in previous Quarters will be useful.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We noted that in March, Stephen has continued with writing a GitHub app token generator - see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/252.
[rationale] This is one of the "pieces of the jigsaw" that will allow us to wrap up scripts that we write into GitHub apps.
We noted that André and Vani met in March to wrap up work on the tag taxonomy project; Vani is currently correcting a final list of tags for topics and emotions, and we have agreed to dispense with the "Other" tag category in the final tool redesign, as people have tended not to use it in very useful ways.
We have agreed on minimal editing of the controlled vocab - we're only removing obvious duplicates and misspellings - because we don't want to overdetermine similarity. Two tags that appear superficially similar might have very different connotations for the individual who created them - so we will try to preserve those differences, and see what a graph RAG process makes of it.
We noted that this lays the groundwork for what can be analysed later, using techniques such as proximity, semantic similarity, rarity of a tag, and co-occurence of tags (for example if a particular person's name/presence in a meeting is often correlated with a particular emotion tag, such as "organised"). Also we noted that, particularly with negative emotions, the fact that a meeting was not tagged with a particular emotion doesn't necessarily mean that the emotion wasn't there - often, a problem needs to become really severe before someone will tag a summary with (for example) "aggressive" or "silencing", and there could be a buildup over several (untagged) meetings which led to it. Subject to funding, we could use our tag taxonomy as a basis for future community analysis of the topology of emotions and topics that has been identified in meetings.
There is also an ethical dimension to this - asking "is AI drawing the correct conclusions?" and giving the community some ownership of the conclusions that are drawn - which we will be able to examine.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
An extra WG Sync call on Mon 7th April will focus on collaborations between the Ambassador Program and sNET spinoffs/partners.
We added info on our past collabs and hoped-for future collabs in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EMxTnjWwjgRyRYmKBaYhLu1vdaHpXQH5FWD69qgO54A/edit?usp=sharing - particularly looking at sharing our recordkeeping tooling with other organisations - and we'll attend the meeting to discuss.
[opposing] For us, collaborations might also extend cross-chain, and even to organisations outside of Web3
We will post in Discord to remind people that time limit to submit a summary, after which it will be recorded as "no summary given", is one month after the date of the meeting.`
We discussed how to manage low token price in general.
Suggestions included drawing down (say) half of the overall Ambassador budget for a Quarter and converting it to a stablecoin, in order to give more stability and balance it with risk; asking the community how much risk they want to take (i.e. should it be half, or less, or more?) And the idea of not restricting our holdings to just AGIX.
These ideas will be added to the "Low-Budget Brainstorm" Miro board https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVISH_ACg=/ for discussion in Governance WG.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We discussed the proposal that the Archives team has submitted to the BGI Nexus funding round and invited people to vote: see https://deepfunding.ai/proposal/ethical-ai-auditing-a-practice-based-approach/
We noted that in the event that this work doesn't get funded in the BGI Nexus round, we will still want to find a way to do it - although this will be limited by budget constraints if we try to do it as part of the Workgroup.
[rationale] We now have a lot of data in the Archives, and want to look at how we ethically process and interrogate that data, and how we engage the community who "owns" a dataset (in this case the Ambassador Program) with analysing and verifying the insights that an AI might give about it - in other words, looking at AI's conclusions and developing the critical thinking to assess how accurate they are.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Vani has approached DeepFunding, to ask if the Events Circle could take on documentation of DF Town Hall. Focus Group agreed this would be valid - waiting for a reply from Events Circle
Also some interest in Focus Group re: how the Archives tool could be used for further documentation within DF [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 2 April 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Andre to add "Jeffrey Ndarake" "UknowZork" "Alfred Itodele" "Évéline Trinite" and "All" as new Names in the names controlled vocab here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r5LDA7yiERtWuu-HHYsBiG-RLyjDCtTZUB8H-xZHFsE/edit?usp=sharing [assignee] André [due] 30 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] André and Vani to meet to wrap up the tag taxonomy issue by deciding on an initial controlled vocab for topic and emotion tags [assignee] André, CallyFromAuron [due] 2 April 2025 [status] done
[action] Vani to add any new tasks to the GitHub Board which have been funded for Q2 [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 30 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: AGIX price, Q2 2025 budget, controlled vocab, Collaboration, collaboration with spinoffs and partners, WG Sync call, Knowledge management across the singularityNET ecosystem, cross-chain collaboration, Correcting errors in meeting summaries, ACP, stablecoin, AI ethics, meaning, graph RAG, managing low token price, BGI Nexus funding round, critical thinking
emotions: interesting, wide-ranging
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, guillermolucero, jeffrey ndarake, Bandojayy, AshleyDawn
Purpose: R&D Updates and Discussions
Working Docs:
Welcoming new Members and Introduction
Review of last meeting summary Action Items
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard, W3CD-Web3-Contributors-Dashboard, CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database, Social-Media-Dashboard, Reputation-System-using-SoulBound-Tokens-SBTs
MetaCoders Lab Discussion
AOB Open discussions
Project Showcase Preparation for R&D Guild
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
New proposal applications: Guillermo noted that he was going to put the three proposal submissions to a vote within the week.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database: Advanceameyaw outlined that a showcase was planned for the AI Sandbox session. advanceameyaw also informed the guild on the difficulties encountered with Railway in fetching static files, which affects the appearance of the admin portal. The team had previously used Heroku for testing but opted for Railway to improve performance and reduce costs. Lordkizzy raised a question about the timeline for moving back to Heroku and its impact on project completion, which advance emphasized the benefits of deploying services on Heroku, particularly its user-friendly interface and free tier options. He compared the costs of Heroku and AWS, indicating that AWS could be more expensive unless they already have an account. Lordkizzy raised the question of whether they could use Kenichi's AWS account for their project deployment, to which Advanceameyaw agreed it could be a viable option.
Project Showcase Preparation for Collaboration Skill Database by R&D Guild Members with AI Sandbox: Lordkizzy detailed the upcoming project showcase for the Collaboration Skill Database, emphasizing its key features, including an in-depth overview, live demonstrations, and an exploration of real-world applications. Advance also mentioned that the session will cover challenges encountered during the project and improvements made, providing valuable insights for attendees. Guillermo provided some feedback to advance on the project, noting he should add a brief project description and noted that there would be another presentation of the project at Deepfunding TH.
[action] Lordkizzy to follow up on communication with the soft launch of the deployment of Legacy [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 9 April 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Guillermo will advertise the voting for the new proposals. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 9 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Advance to check if Kenichi's AWS account can be used for the project deployment. [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 9 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Nunet, CSDB, Team Collaboration , Project Showcase, Proposals
emotions: Collaborative, informative, Understanding.
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, Tevo, LordKizzy, LadyTempestt, Effiom, Évéline Trinité, guillermolucero, Sucre n Spice, AshleyDawn
Purpose: Weekly Open Governance session
Working Docs:
NUMBER AND VALIDITY OF RESPONSES IN THE 2nd ROUND CONSENT FORMS In total there were 17 responses, but 1 was from someone who is not a Core Contributor, so it was deleted.
HAVE THE BUDGETS OF THE REMAINING WGs PASSED? Yes, all have been approved.
African Guild: 11 consent, 2 object, 3 abstain.
AI Sandbox/Think Tank: 13 consent, 0 object, 3 abstain.
Education: 11 consent, 1 object, 4 abstain.
Marketing: 9 consent, 1 object, 6 abstain.
R&D: 11 consent, 2 object, 3 abstain.
Writers: 10 consent, 1 object, 5 abstain.
Wr noted, however, that several of those who abstained/objected didn't comment to say why; and we noted a fairly high number of abstentions. Are people abstaining because they see it as a "soft" way to register an objection? Or because they are not anonymous? Tevo noted in Chat that he abstained to "all where I saw progress in reporting and budget, but was not quite yet harmless".
COMMENTS RAISED IN THE 2nd-ROUND CONSENT FORMS We read through the consent forms, and noted 1) which objections from Round 1 people had said were still an issue, and 2) all the comments. There were severa l concerns that were about how people write their reports and budgets. We wondered whether there is a need for some sessions that look at this, and if so, whether Governance is the right place for it; but we didn't reach a conclusion.
HOW WILL WE TRACK THE CONCERNS RAISED? Some of them may need further discussion, and/or for the WG concerned to take action. We decided how to address these issues so they are not forgotten about (see "decisions" below). We also noted that:
Tevo can use PowerBI as usual to give stats and insights on the consent process;
Guillermo could in the long term try to develop his planned Consent Process dashboard to help us track issues raised in the consent process; although this would be difficult at present, because low token price means the scope of that project can't easily be extended.
Number and validity of responses from 2nd-round consent form
Have the budgets of the remaining 6 WGs in the 2nd round been approved or not?
Going through the comments raised in the consent forms
How will we track the concerns raised?
All the WGs' budgets are now approved
[rationale] because they all met the approval threshold of no more than 20% objection (not counting abstentions)
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Where appropriate, we will add the issues raised in the consent form comments to the GovWG agenda for discussion in future meetings
[opposing] some discussion about whether Governance meetings is the right place for further discussion of how to write a good quarterly report
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We will use the doc "budget decision - main issues mentioned in objections" to log issues that were raised in this consent process, and adapt the doc to note anything that should be tracked, e.g. if a WG said that it will address an issue in its next quarterly report.
[rationale] to ensure that issues don't get lost or forgotten.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Vani to add issues mentioned in 2nd round consent forms to the Governance WG rolling agenda where applicable [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 8 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani to collate issues from this consent round in the "budget decision - main issues mentioned in objections" doc [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 8 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Tevo to export data from PowerBI about this consent round [assignee] Tevo [due] 10 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: consent process, Q2 2024 budget, abstention, tracking concerns, PowerBI, anonymity, dashboard
emotions: good-natured, forward-looking, Collaborative
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Clement Umoh [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], LordKizzy, Sucre n Spice, Love, CallyFromAuron, AshleyDawn, Jeffrey, martinsoki, Kateri, UKnowZork, Alfred Itodele, zainab, CJFrankie, Effiom, Clement Umoh
Purpose: Bi-weekly meetings update on how to onboard people in our community
Working Docs:
Meeting Kickoff and Budget Updates: Clement kicked off the meeting with a discussion on action items. Sucren gave an update on the members' engagement, noting that some inactive members were contacted, while some active members received the onboarding tag, allowing them to participate in tasks. Vani provided an update on the timestamping task for the M&E Session. She mentioned that Onize had requested the session recording, and the task is currently in progress.
Onboarding to Decentralization Analysis Update Lordkizzy and Clement presented the analysis doc in the meeting ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoiFu7sdgmmJbeOGe3ig8-JtvMvlGT5w9ctnXJYyc2E/edit?usp=sharing), noting the significant changes that were made to the document. Vani noted that some of the recommendations (Onboarding session, Training sessions) had already been done within the program, and they received low participation. Lordkizzy noted that most members are not aware of the processes in place within the program for onboarding to decentralization and suggested that we should make more efforts in raising the level of awareness on this.
Onboarding WG Budget Discussion Vani presented the final draft of the Onboarding WG Q2 budget, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing the Skillshare session on "Understanding the Ecosystem" to sustain morale and engagement. She noted that meetings will be held monthly rather than biweekly, with a focus on supporting onboarders. Additionally, she mentioned that payment schedules are being considered, with options for monthly or quarterly disbursements.
AOB: BGI Voting Round: Clement reminded the group that the BGI Voting round was live and encouraged members to review proposals before the voting deadline.
We decided that Clement should facilitate in place of Duke
[rationale] Duke wasn't present in the call
We decided to transition to monthly sessions
[rationale] This is due to the impact of AGIX price decline on the workgroup budget
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We decided to implement all the changes in the reduced budget
[rationale] Given AGIX price might be worth nothing right now
[opposing] We worked out that if token price drops below $0.17 for any length of time, we will not be able to afford even this, and will have to rethink.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Kizzy to complete the “Onboarding to Decentralization analysis” before the next meeting. [assignee] LordKizzy [status] done
[action] Kizzy to rework on the onboarding facilitation and documentation roster [assignee] LordKizzy [status] done
[action] Vani will provide an update on the fitted budget due to the token price drop in the next meeting on April 3rd. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [status] done
[action] Colly Pride will send a direct message to Duke to confirm his facilitation for the meeting on April 3rd. [assignee] CollyPride [status] cancelled
[action] Lordkizzy to send a reminder to kateri to document the next meeting [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 1 May 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Budget Concerns,, Documentation Roster, AGIX price, Rewards
emotions: Collaborative, forward-thinking, Concern, Productive, Openness
Type of meeting: Sandbox
Present: osmium [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], Gorga Siagian, Kateri, osmium, martinsoki, UknowZork, Alfred Itodole, Santos, LordKizzy, AJ, Max milez, AshleyDawn, PeterE
Purpose: AI Sandbox Project Showcase
Working Docs:
Meeting Coordination and Introduction: The meeting kicked off with Osmium, warmly welcoming everyone attendees in the meeting. He encouraged members to submit their email on NuNet Testers Onboarding Form. Osmium presented the AI Sandbox Project Showcase, emphasizing its role as a play for highlighting innovative AI projects from SingularityNet community.
Introduction of the Skills Database (SDB): AJ gave a full presentation of the skill database. He explained that, the skill database is a structured skill registry designed to streamline team collaboration and that it enables users to provide their skills, expertise, availability and relevant experience.
He went further to talk about use cases of the skills database He said it could be used in real world scenarios, corporate team building, freelance and Gig platforms, organizations and educational institutions.
He also explained the potential impact and benefits. He explained how it helps enhance collaboration, it informed decision making, it streamlined onboarding and it assured data privacy.
He explained the flow of the user and the admin in the skill database platform.
After AJ presentation, Advanceameyaw led a live testing session for the AI project, encouraging user participation and feedback while maintaining data privacy. He discussed the project's first version and future updates, engaging participants in conversations about their skills and interests in AI. We tested using random data of UknowZork suggested by members. He encouraged everyone to fill the form.
Advanceameyaw detailed the technology stack used for the project and outlined the process for redeploying the application to identify and debug errors.
Advance highlighted key challenges for developers and mentioned ongoing improvements, including a scalable deployment service. Vasu suggested integrating scheduling tools like Zapier and Google Calendar to enhance workflow efficiency. The discussion also touched on budget constraints, with Lordkizzy emphasizing the need to trim expenses and potentially reduce the frequency of AI tool exhibitions.
[action] MartinSoki to document the next meeting [assignee] martinsoki [due] 10 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Members to submit their email to NuNet testers onboarding form [assignee] all [due] 10 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Members to fill out the skill database project form [assignee] Members [due] 9 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Project Showcase, Skill Database
emotions: Welcoming, Interactive, Informative, Educative
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], kareem, kenichi, Gorga Siagian, Eric Davies, Kateri, advanceameyaw, UknowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, Mikasa, CJFrankie, photogee, Malik, PeterE, esewilliams, LordKizzy, Zainab
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting
Working Docs:
Introduction of New member: The discussion began with a warm greeting from Ayo. Zainab shared her experiences around the program and also introduce herself. Marttinsoki apologized for submitting the Meeting Summary note late.
Q1 Retrospective Discussion: LordKizzy highlighted the Guilds achievements but pointed out communication gaps with other guilds and workgroups. He stressed the importance of increasing awareness of the content calendar and the Ambassador program's processes. CJFrankie raised concerns about the ambassador program's effectiveness, suggesting a reduction in meetings and a focus on marketing initiatives. He emphasized the importance of community engagement through events and branded merchandise to raise awareness. CJFrankie also mentioned the potential for fundraising efforts, such as GoFundMe, to support these initiatives. Kareem emphasized the need for the Marketing Guild to create greater awareness about SingularityNet and its projects, arguing that current activities are too meeting-centric with limited outcomes. He suggested leveraging trends in the Web3 space for relevant content creation. Ayo questioned the implementation of marketing strategies, particularly regarding the roles of writers and video workgroups, while also noting that the ambassador program may not fully recognize its marketing responsibilities. Kareem suggested that the Ambassador Program might adopt new practices based on his experience. LordKizzy pointed out that the program's fixed allocation in agents creates challenges, particularly when the token price fluctuates, impacting the overall effectiveness of the program. He noted the absence of a supervisory council to address these issues and mentioned that many guilds are struggling due to the current funding structure.
Q2 Budget Discussion: LordKizzy pointed out the concerning low participation in a recent consent form from marketing guild members, which raises questions about engagement and involvement in critical decisions. He also mentioned that there are still some objections that need to be addressed, with the first one being related to the Zealy initiative. LordKizzy provided clarity on the Zealy Initiative and Zealy Impact. LordKizzy discussed the marketing group's budget for Q1 2025, revealing that expenses exceeded the planned budget by $1,100. He emphasized the difficulties arising from the low token price, which affects the distribution of rewards to the core/task force members and the execution of various initiatives. A proposal was made to revert to previous allocation rates to manage the financial strain. Kenichi highlighted ongoing issues with Zealy participants not receiving their rewards, while LordKizzy pointed out the lack of a public announcement detailing who was to be rewarded. LordKizzy stated that payments had been made twice, but confusion over account verification and duplicate names complicated the process. Both speakers agreed on the need for clearer communication and a more organized approach to reward distribution. Ayo called for finalizing the governance document to improve decision-making and budgeting processes, and Martisoki was encouraged to gather action items for review in the next meeting, with a reminder for Guild members to arrive early for enhanced productivity.
[action] Jeffrey to put a comment in the Marketing Guild channel on Discord to help us identify him. [assignee] Jeffrey [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to reach out to kenichi regarding the Zealy initiative allocation for Writers WG [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Eric Davies to provide clarity on the options for the Discord bot in the next meeting. [assignee] Eric Davies [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Martinsoki to put all the action items for review in next call [assignee] martinsoki [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Ese to document all Q1 useful links into our Github Issue Board [assignee] esewilliams [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Photogee to share the Marketing Guild Google Drive to LordKizzy [assignee] photogee [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] All members to review the governance documents and provide comments before the next meeting. [assignee] members [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to execute the March payment status poll to finalize decisions on budget allocations. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to clarify the benefits of the Zealy initiative to improve understanding among members. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 11 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, Initiatives, Budget Allocation, Zealy sprints
emotions: Insightful, welcoming, progressive, relaxed, collaborative
Meeting video:
Media link: