Week 18
Mon 28th Apr - Sun 4th May 2025
Tuesday 29th April 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Maximilez [facilitator], LadyTempestt [documenter], PeterE, AshleyDawn, UKnowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Tevo, advanceameyaw
Purpose: Regular Weekly Governance WG meeting
Media link: Link
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Action Items from the last meeting How do we determine the absolute bare minimum budget that each WG/Guild needs? A minimum budget could be like a next step up for new ideas before it becomes an actual workgroup; one issue here is that the minimum budget for one workgroup might be different for another. For example, 5000AGIX as the minimum budget for one WG is like on the high side and a full budget allocation for another WG/Guild whose minimum budget is about 1500AGIX. Are there any specific challenges or successes in determining the minimum budget?
A few workgroups have had to create a new budget sheet; cut their rewards by 50 percent to do almost the same work they've been doing, and added extra task to the work they have to do with 50% reduction in rewards; they have had to go for monthly meetings, and no meetings while working async. They had to pick up the most critical task(which could be 1 or 2) and carry over the rest to the next quarter.
We noted that high token price paves ways for people to try different things that relates to the main purpose of their WG/Guild but that with this low token price a lot of people have had to think critically and focus only on priorities in their respective WGs/Guilds’ which isn't exactly ideal because then there is no room for exploring new ideas. Most WGs/Guilds are prioritizing based on importance or need.
We've also noticed that monthly meetings and async coordination is not exactly the budget save we think it is because most times there is always a need for an Async support role which would still cost money. In few cases where there is a constant task with a flat fee no matter the token price, much saving can not be done there.
We also noticed that some WGs are relatively safe; they almost do not need more funds; they had fewer meetings which resulted in low engagement levels in their WGs; most of their work turned into an automated process so it needed less maintenance and update.
We noted that in some WGs while it is cheaper to maintain after the initial setup, in other WGs it becomes costly when you start getting people engaged and see the need to maintain that engagement and that usually happens through giving out tasks AND we tend to lose most people during low budget period because there's nothing for them to do.
How do we go about the budget minimum? Making cuts no matter how low it gets as there is no extra money somewhere coming to save you even if it means that fewer people get tasks. On the other hand, we can not exactly tell WGs to cut down to the barest minimum tasks rewards just to keep everyone engaged because that is stepping on WG autonomy and would become disrespectful at some point to people doing great work. Get information from WGs on if their current budget cap does cover their essentials, what essential bits that aren't covered and how much more they need. The aim is to see how we can progress the discussion on tweaking budget caps in the future.
What do we mean by contribution and participation? Just a side convo: If someone attends two meetings at the same time with just their faces there does that count as a contribution? It depends on what we are looking for essentially, we can set the parameters of what participation or contribution are according to what matters to us as a community.
Discussion Points:
How do we determine the absolute bare minimum budget that each WG/Guild needs?
Are there any specific challenges or successes in determining the minimum budget?
How do we go about the budget minimum?
What do we mean by contribution and participation?
Decision Items:
We agreed to create a spreadsheet and collate information from WGs/Guilds on if their current budget cap does cover their essentials, what essential bits that aren't covered and how much more they need and see how it goes.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: WGs minimum budget
emotions: Interesting, Contributive, Deliberative
Wednesday 30th April 2025
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], Zalfred, AshleyDawn, esewilliams, frosh, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, smilez, Tevo, UKnowZork, hogantuso, osmium, FranklynStein
Purpose: Portfolio submission -Assessors' Role - Presentation Series - Canvas LMS - Thinkific Platform
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
Slate started the meeting welcoming everyone
Starting things off with a quick shoutout to the portfolio submissions being open for assesors , infographic creators and video creators through which interested participants can submit their work links for selection
There was a discussion about the assessors role that how should that be distributed whether their should be a single team with people assigned who take up all the three tasks or should the teams be divided into differnt sections of tasks
Then the discussion shifted towards the Presentation Series Project that there was little to no update given on that context due to no follow-ups by Kenichi.
Then zalfred presented his findings on the canvas LMS platform highlighting its pros and cons
Slate presented the thinkific platform which offers extensive features and might be best for certification program with its in-built integrations. it also has the same modular approach as from the previous certification round
Tevo mentioned that Andamio platform can also be used for this purpose though modular approach wont be there and need to be built
Action Items:
[action] checking responses from portfolios [assignee] Slate [due] 7 May 2025 [status] todo
[action] discover potential for thinkific platform [assignee] Slate [due] 7 May 2025 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Process improvement, lms, portfolios
Last updated