search
githubEdit

Week 6

Mon 3rd Feb - Sun 9th Feb 2025

hashtag
Monday 3rd February 2025

hashtag
AI Ethics WG

hashtag
Narrative:

As always, we went through the GitHub board starting with items "In Progress" followed by "To Do".

INTERVIEWING

  • Several interview tasks from both Q4 2024 and this Quarter are still pending

  • Several "interview" issues are still open because Vani is checking interview validity - slower process than expected. Perhaps next Quarter we'll train more people to do it too, to speed things up.

  • Several interviews haven't met the validity criteria that we set for payment - WG admin team will agree on thresholds to partially pay interviews that are not quite there.

  • Biggest issue is interviews too short.

  • Validity comprises 2 things - the WG's agreed criteria for payment, and validity for inclusion in BGI Nexus's research corpus - e.g. a too-short interview could still be included in the research.

  • Should we change our criteria for the next round of interviews?

  • Esther will lead a "peer support"-style meeting for interviewers to discuss what we've all learnt.

AGI-24 PAYMENTS

  • People's work at AGI-24 has at last been paid! Thanks to Esther for working with the Foundation to find a way to process the payments. Although we didn't yet get a process in place that can be used in future, we now understand the administrative landscape better, and should be able to establish such a process next time there is direct payment from the Foundation to people in the Ambassador Program.

TRANSCRIPTION

  • Work hasn't started yet - there will be a training session before the end of Feb on how to transcribe, using Intelligent Verbatim style.

  • Several interviewers are happy to transcribe their own interviews, but for those who are not, there might be tasks for other people to pick up.

MATCH FUNDING

  • Esther has been trying to regularise match funding from the Foundation, rather than having to go through a process each Quarter - nothing definite yet

  • Possibly, match funding could support a small funding pipeline for events attendance and similar.

  • We agreed a meeting between Nexus and the WG would be useful to discuss how best to spend any future match funding that is secured from the Foundation to support the work; although the final decision should be made by BGI Nexus

BGI-25 CONFERENCE, ISTANBUL, MAY 2025 We discussed Ambassador Program involvement in this event, in the light of ongoing discussions on event attendance and spending Program reserves. No definite decisions, but we will get Peter's input and discuss BGI-25 again next meeting. We shouldn't leave it too late, to allow time for possible attendees to get visas.

SURVEY-SHARING Survey sharing tasks are now completed - overall cost was $180 ($30 x 6 people). So far, we got 57 complete responses as a result, and no partial responses; and there might be more to come. Might be worth doing more in a future Quarter - if we scale this (500-ish reponses would be meaningful, which would cost maybe $1,500), it is worth it given the value it adds to the research.

Q2 2025 BUDGET We looked at draft budget and discussed briefly - invited comments from members - TBC next meeting

STRATEGY GUILD WORKSHOP Gorga let the group know that later today there will be a Strategy Guild workshop to discuss AI Ethics work; this is part of Strategy Guild's ongoing sessions with different WGs.

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • We agreed it would be useful to have a meeting between Nexus and the WG at some point to discuss how best to spend any future match funding that is secured from the Foundation; although the final decision should be made by BGI Nexus

    • [rationale] to ensure input from the WG members on their priorities; possibly to create a small funding pipeline to support events attendance and similar, inspired by Clement and Advance's attendance at the ETHiopia event.

    • [opposing] We'd need criteria and an application process

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed that survey-sharing work was reasonably successful

    • [rationale] overall cost $180 57 complete responses, perhaps more to come. If we scale this (500-ish reponses would be meaningful, which would cost maybe $1,500), it is worth it given the value it adds to the research.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Vani will finish interview validity checks in next couple of weeks, so that interviews can be paid where eligible [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 21 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] WG admin team will agree on thresholds to partially pay interviews that are not quite meet validity criteria, especially on length [assignee] CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Sucre n Spice, CollyPride [due] 28 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to set a date for transcription training session by end of Feb [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 28 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani and Esther to set a date by the end of the Quarrter for a "peer support"-style meeting for interviewers to discuss what we've all learnt. [assignee] EstherG, CallyFromAuron [due] 31 March 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: AI Ethics Interviews, interview validity, AGI-24 payments, Interview Transcription, intelligent verbatim, 1P1V, match funding, ETHiopia event, BGI-25 conference, events attendance, Ambassador Program reserves, Strategy Guild workshop, Q2 2025 budget, AI Ethics survey

  • emotions: quick, Only a few of those present spoke, calm, Collaborative

hashtag
Tuesday 4th February 2025

hashtag
Governance Workgroup

hashtag
Narrative:

We agreed the following timeline for the Q2 budget consent process:

🌟 Thurs 6th March - deadline to confirm what the budget caps are for Q2 (in Open Gov meeting?) and the exhange rate to be used for calculating budgets 🌟 Mon 10th March: deadline for WGs to submit Q1 quarterly reports and Q2 budgets. Also - calculate who is a Core Contributor 🌟 Mon 17th March: deadline for Core Contributors to complete consent forms 🌟 Tues 18th March: discuss objections in Gov WG meeting. WGs without any objections are approved 🌟 Sun 23rd March: deadline for WGs with objections to submit a revised budget 🌟 Mon 24th March: 2nd-round consent forms go out, for those WGs that have objections 🌟 Weds 26th March: deadline for Core Contributors to submit 2nd consent forms 🌟 Thurs 27th March: discuss and finalise in Open Gov meeting

We have the dates for Q3 decision (June) and Q4 decision (Sept) worked out on a similar timeline; but we agreed to confirm these nearer the time. We also noted that for Q3, Guillermo/R&D's proposed dashboard will be ready, which might help streamline the decisionmaking process and shorten the timeline.

RE: setting an exchange rate to be used for Q2 budgets - we noted the current low token price, and suggested $0.35, but noted that the final decision doesn't need to be made until early March.

We discussed the suggestions in the "Budget Caps for Q2" document, and decided our approach to the New Ideas budget; new workgroups; and budget cap amounts (see "decisions" below).

In relation to budget caps - we emphasised that any WGs who feel their cap is too low need to prioritise, and there are not many WGs who have outputs that need to be protected regardless. WGs should also be encouraged to use their Q1 quarterly report to explain any negative effects of their budget caps - for example, listing the work that they would have liked to do but have been unable to do because their budget cap was too low - so that the community can assess whether their cap needs to be raised. But we did note that this process is quite slow.

The lobger term suggestions in the "Budget caps for Q2?" doc particularly around the idea of WGs establishing minimums below which they can't operate - will be discussed in a later meeting.

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • Dates for Q2 budget consent process

  • What exchange rate should be used for calculating Q2 2025 budgets?

  • Will there be a New Ideas budget for Q2 2025?

  • Will new WGs be permitted for Q2 2025?

  • Q2 2025 budget caps - will they stay the same as Q1?

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • We agreed the timeline for the Q2 budget decision process. We agreed to set the exchange rate to be used for Q2 budgets in early march. We agreed to confirm the timelines for Q3 and Q4 nearer the time.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We confirmed that the New Ideas budget will be reinstated for Q2, and it will be taken from the cumulative remaining amount that is left over from previous Quarters (just over 5k AGIX), rather than taking a percentage from the Q2 budget.

    • [rationale] Because, since there is money that has been previously allocated to New Ideas and not used, it makes sense (especially in a time of low token price) to use it, rather than reducing WGs' budget caps and taking a percentage from the Q2 budget.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that the upper limit that can be spent on New Ideas in Q2 will be 1,500 AGIX

    • [rationale] because even though we have 5k AGIX unspent in total, New Ideas should be used to support small "starter" things rather than high-budget ideas.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that before Q2 begins, we will discuss and agree guidelines on how this budget can (and cannot) be used, basing this on the existing draft doc

    • [rationale] Because we need a process in place for how proposals to use New Ideas budget should be agreed, and guikdelines on what it can and can't be spent on.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that independent new workgroups with their own separate budgets will not be permitted in Q2; but new WGs can be created under the heading of an existing Guild, and costed within that Guild's budget cap.

    • [rationale] Because this will give e.g. regional Guilds the freedom to start new initiatives as they need, within their existing budgets; but it will not require budget caps to be changed to allow budget for completely new WGs.

    • [opposing] Not an opposing argument, but it was suggested that for clarity we shouldn't call these new initiatives "workgroups" as such, but just "neew initiatives.

  • We agreed that budget caps will stay the same (in AGIX) for Q2 as they were for Q1.

    • [rationale] Because core contributors need to see the reports for Q1 which outline any effects of budget caps before being able to decide if they agree that a WG's cap needs to change

    • [opposing] It was noted that this means that if a WG's cap really is too low, they will not be able to change it until Q3 at the earliest, which is quite slow

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed there needs to be some kind of context-setting or informational material for WGs to explain this need to use their Q1 quarterly reports to explain any issues with their budget caps. This will be discussed in a later meeting.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: budget caps, Q2 2024 budget, consent process, timeline, token price, Exchange rates, Q1 quarterly report, New ideas, Process for agreeing new workgroups

  • emotions: Good natured, low attendance, Discursive, progress made

hashtag
GitHub PBL WG

hashtag
Agenda item 1 - Workgroup management - [carry over]

hashtag
Discussion Points:

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • 10 AGIX for providing Paragraph in the Community Engagement section.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We will have a PBL WG Organization to contain every PBL report.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Eveline to create meeting summary. [assignee] Evelyn [due] 11 February 2025 [status] done

  • [action] SUB Zero to review meeting summary. [assignee] SubZero [due] 11 February 2025 [status] done

  • [action] SUB Zero to review and update Quarter 1 Proposal

[assignee] SubZero [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Agenda item 2 - Finalise and Upload Lessons to Andamio - [carry over]

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • What issues we ran into as Andamio Course Creators.

  • Feedback form: Is it working as expected? How do we get people interested in Feedback?

  • 2 out of 7 responses Failed to report on correct course

  • 3 out of 7 responses found the lessons to be less than high quality, but did not provide any insight

  • 1 out of 7 responses was implementable

  • Should we reward feedback? What kind of feedback should be rewarded?

  • Review Course Module 103arrow-up-right what to add and what should be omitted.

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • 10 AGIX will be rewarded to individuals who provide course feedback through form and only if their feedback results in a content change in PBL lessons. Each module is rewarded separately. We don’t reward the feedback if its submitted during the session.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Lady Tempestt to Include how to set up a GitHub user profile and Github account GitHub Guidesarrow-up-right to lesson 103.1 [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 11 February 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Lady Tempest and Tevo to include a lesson about asking students to join the PBL WG Organization and add it to assignment requirements [assignee] LadyTempestt, Tevo [due] 11 February 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Lady Tempestt to Remove Step 12 on Module 103.1 [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Tevo will share a guide on minting access tokens for the Andamio Platform [assignee] Tevo [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to include guidelines about requesting help in lesson 103.3 [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to provide examples on how to ask support questions in lesson 103.3 [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to remove repetitive sentences from lesson 103.2 [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to remove titles from most of the steps in lesson 103.2 [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga to update wording in the lesson 103.2 [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 11 February 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Workgroup Management, Quarter 1 Report, Rewards, PBL Course Project, Andamio PBL Courses Issue, PBL Courses on Andamio , Feedback Form, PBL course Module

  • emotions: Collaborative, insightful

hashtag
Wednesday 5th February 2025

hashtag
Archives Workgroup

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • We noted that given current low-ish token price, we're not able to start the proposed initiative to create a skilled documentation team.

We'll review this next meeting We might look at creating a video walkthrough for the new version of the summary tool, as a cheaper way to show people how to use it.

  • [rationale] We had this in our Q1 budget: "If token price rises sufficiently above $0.55" (the exchange rate at which Q1 budgets were calculated). Price hasn't risen enough.

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Our Quarterly Report draft is open for comments and changes - see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/231

    • [rationale] Needs to be submitted on 10th March - so we will sign it off in our next meeting on 5th March

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We noted that there is a new repo for the new version of the summary tool - see https://github.com/Quality-Assurance-DAO/archive-tool/commits/main/?since=2025-01-01&until=2025-01-31

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • André, tool development: see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/240 We noted that André has been working on an Autosave feature for the Summary Tool - he has it locally, and it will soon be rolled out.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We discussed the suggestion (from a Treasury meeting last month) of adding a feature to the Summary Tool for data capture for decisions made outside of WG meetings (for example, the quarterly budget decisions). We considered doing this as a new summary template, but decided against this approach, and will keep ideating

    • [rationale] because it might make us too constrained in how we capture these kinds of decisions

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We noted that Stephen has completed and shared his presentation on philosopher Robert Stalnaker's approach to context, and its relation to AI ethics https://youtu.be/VhYfA0ehw3w?si=N0tc_AW6T3Bx7duU

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Open source workflow, Stephen: Stephen has been doing some didactic work to document his thinking on what might be a best-practice approach to applying AI to records. See https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/233.

He is working towards a presentation on graph data modelling, and another on how to audit graph data.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • LLM development: 1st release of graph database in Python is now complete.

Stephen has used a single meeting summary (a Governance meeting from several months ago) as a demonstration of the graph process. He translates the JSON meeting data to a graph structure using Python, then moves it to a Neo4j graph database, and has been working on suggestions for how to query it and verify that it makes sense.

For the rest of February he will be

  • enhancing this so it is easier to use

  • adding additional records to it to see how it handles the connections between different summaries

  • adding an additional layer of data, from the Archives WG GitHub Board https://github.com/orgs/SingularityNET-Archive/projects/1/views/3

    • [opposing] Note that labels are not properly formulated yet - they are taken from the first part of the node name.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Ethics policy: see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/234 When this is done, we agreed we will share it in AI Ethics WG and the AI Ethics forum on Discord for further input.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • Tag taxonomy, especially for topic tags: Composability of our data - could a tag taxonomy "sit on top" of our other structured data to help the graph rag process? We agreed that perhaps we do not need to completely dedupe the entire database - but a controlled vocab for tags might still be useful for the future, in the same way as the controlled vocab for names has been. Perhaps create a list that minimally dedupes (stripping out misspellings and similar, and replacing tags like "budget" with "Q4 2024 budget" etc - or perhaps rely on semantic similarity.

We might come back to the insights gained from the tag taxonomy project in future (the types of topics that get discussed, and how they are distributed across different WGs) when looking at the types of questions that can be asked of the corpus.

But the work we thought we needed to do - the exhaustive "tidying up" of the database and correcting / deduplicating tags - is probably not necessary.

Named Entity recognition scripts might relate to this - determining what an entity is (a person, an organisation, a topic?)

  • [rationale] Because the knowledge graph approach we are now using allows for more "messy" data, but we nevertheless need to use proper techniques and be methodical, so people can see how we're doing things. Semantic similarity is of course one approach to finding connections - but for some data elements (e.g. people's names) this doesn't work, as names are abstract and won't display any semantic relation - so this makes a controlled vocab for names more important.

For tags, however, a graph can find sematic similarity between different-but-similar tags - especially the emotional tags - so we might not need to be so assiduous in ensuring that similar tags ("discursive" vs "exploratory" or whatever) are deduped.

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Names taxonomy: we agreed we do need to add "All",

    • [rationale] because it is quite often used to asssign action items that everyone in the WG is going to do.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We noted that there is a sense in which Read.ai and other generic AI tools erase who we are as a community if they are used uncritically.

They have been designed to understand conventional business and corporate contexts; soi when they ceate meeting summaries for us, they tend to write them as though we are that kind of organisation. Lacking any context about decentralised communities and how they work, AI summaries can subtly miss the point, and can force a record that suggests the Ambassador Program operates like a corporate environment.

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We provisionally agreed the WG's budget for Q2 2025 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BLCkYgyV0rnt-Ntlqp_DXGCm1t3KieAVMS_HaUamqQI/edit?usp=sharing

Comments will stay open until next meeting, when we will sign it off

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Due to low exchange rate ($0.30) for Q2 budgets, we will not be able to afford to continue with archives management tasks of checking, correcting, and chasing meeting summaries.

So rather than push this cost to Q3, as we might have done in the past, we will use it as an opportunity to experiment. In Q2 we will not do any of this work; summaries will be archived "as-is", and any late submissions will be recorded as "no summary given" with no chasing. Then, we can constrain a graph to look only at Q2 summaries, and see what effect, if any, this has on the clarity and accuracy of information we are able to derive, and compare this with previous Quarters.

If we find it has a negative effect, we can look at ways of mitigating this (reinstate management of summaries; progress with setting up a skilled documenters' team; drastically simplify summary tool template and limit the amount of information we can derive; etc)

  • [rationale] To help us asssess if our graph-based process of interrogating the Archives corpus can work well regardless of summary quality. Impetus is partly financial; but partly because we would need to do this type of testing at some point, so it's good to do it now when there is also a financial reason to stop managing the Archives as we have been doing.

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Vani to approach DeepFunding, to ask about the issue raised in our November meeting about documentation of DF Town Hall: i.e. sometimes timestamps are not great, and additional work needs to be done to document the sessions in a meaningful way - could DF itself could make any further contribution to the work, e.g. by paying someone from the Town Hall team to add the documentation to the summary tool?

and discuss how the Archives dovetails with documentation that DF is doing itself, such as https://community.deepfunding.ai/ [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 19 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] We noted an issue with tags - people are copy-pasting strings of comma-separated tags into the summary tool, but they are not rendering as separate tags, but as strings. Andre will look into this. [assignee] André [due] 5 March 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to mention the decision to no longer correct ,meeting summaries in the WG Sync Call at the end of Feb [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 27 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] vani and Andre to meet to sign off tag taxonomy, and decide whether to implement a controlled vocab for topic tags [assignee] André, CallyFromAuron [due] 5 March 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: graph database, Neo4j, summary tool, autosave, decision tracking, Robert Stalnaker, AI ethics, Ai recordkeeping ethics, graph data modelling, Python, JSON, Decentralisation, Decentralization, representing our culture in summaries, tag taxonomy, names taxonomy, controlled vocabularies, comma-separated tags, semantic similarity, recordkeeping ethics, archives ethics, archives management

  • emotions: Discursive, interesting, progressive, wide-ranging, inventive, didactic

hashtag
Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], AndrewBen, AshleyDawn, Clement Umoh, esewilliams, FranklynStein, frosh, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, LordKizzy, smilez, hogantuso, osmium, Malik, Slate

  • Purpose: Updates from Wiki website by Franklyn - Update from Governance Workshop - Webinar Series -Presentation Series flow by Tuso - Ai for Beginners - Success criterion for CCCP materials

  • Working Docs:

hashtag
In this meeting we discussed:

  • Updates from Wiki website by Franklyn

  • Update from Governance Workshop

  • Webinar Series

  • Presentation Series flow by Tuso

  • Ai for Beginners

  • Success criterion for CCCP materials

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • Slate started the meeting greeting everyone

  • Firstly, Franklyn showcased the website design with some new addition , He also notified that further additions will be made according to the received suggestion and will be presented shortly

  • Then we had the udpates from Governance Workshop, Kizzy notified that they are working on the blueprint document and the process has changed a bit, that they are going to be adding different governance models to the blueprint analyzing them further for presentation and implementations

  • Clement gave an update in regards to the webinar series that he is coordinating with marketing and Sandbox think tank in ways to collaborate and how to make process in a way that using this initiative forward would also be possible

  • Tuso gave the update from his presentation series module #1 and explained the flow of work for others to get familiar with

  • Ese gave the update from AI for Beginners indicating that most of the stuff is finalized and moving to completion. with detailed update from each task

  • Then for the success criterion for the CCCP resources suggestions and comments were taken and finalized

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • Success Criterion To be formulated till next meet

    • [rationale] mostAgreed

    • [opposing] nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Frank to make the website updates [assignee] FranklynStein [due] 12 February 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Slate to create a success criteria doc with the suggestion [assignee] Slate [due] 12 February 2025 [status] in progress

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: CCCP, design, Task Assignment, AI for beginners, wiki website

  • emotions: productive, Collaborative, Businesslike.

hashtag
Research and Development Guild

hashtag
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

  • Open discussions

  • MetaCoders Lab Discussion

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • Review of last meeting summary Action Items: Lordkizzy went through the action items for the previous meeting and we had a brief introduction for new members

  • Prioritization of Activities: Guillermo emphasized on the need to reprioritize the guild activities due to the decline in AGIX price Eg the MeTTa coder lab, he also suggested that we present this initiative as a New Ideas Budget within the ambassador program, Discussion on MetaCoderLab and Budget Allocation. Lordkizzy raised concerns about the sustainability of the MetaCoderLab initiative if funding is not consistently available.

  • New proposals applications, we plan to open applications on Tuesday the 11th of february, Lordkizzy suggested that we also go through the responses on the previous retrospective session we had on this

  • Follow up on the CSDB: Lordkizzy noted that he had a call with advance and he complained of some deployment issues on the SingularityNET Domain, He also suggested that we have a call with the team and also including Rojo and kenichi

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard, Lordkizzy and guillermo had a call within the week where they went through the document and guillermo added his inputs onto the document. he also spoke on getting advance and Aj joining the project once they are done with the CSDB project.

  • AOB: Guillermo noted that he had a call with Ubio, Vani and lord kizzy to see how we could onboard developers for both the ambassador program and deepfunding

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] ALL team members to provide a Quarterly report on projects in developments [assignee] Team members [due] 12 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Guillermo to create a task force sheet for members to express interest in contributing to the Metta Coder Lab [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 12 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Lordkizzy to schedule a call with guillermo to structure the next proposal voting round [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 12 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Lordkizzy to set up a call with all the team members on their projects [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 12 February 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Tool Development, AI tooling, Presentation, Operations , Workshop, Facilitation, CSDB

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

hashtag
Thursday 6th February 2025

hashtag
Governance Workgroup

hashtag
Narrative:

There was no agenda for today's meeting. (We had previously agreed that after January, we would try to keep the Thursday Open Governance meetings open, with no predetermined agenda, for anyone to raise a governance issue.)

The meeting was quite small.

So the meeting was more digressive than usual - a gentle conversation touching on a range of topics not directly related to the governance mechanisms of the Ambassador program. We agreed to document in a minimal way, by simply logging the topics that arose.

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • Cross-chain collaborations (especially with ETH, given AdvanceAmeyaw and Clement's planned attendance at the ETHiopia Ethereum conference in mid Feb)

  • Cross-chain collaboration as a mindset

  • Adoption of different chains in Africa; which ones are most popular and widely used

  • Clement and AdvanceAmeyaw's plans for engagement at the ETHiopia conference

  • How we keep track of, and follow up on, issues that were raised in the retrospective sessions for previous Quarters' budget decisions

  • How we assess WG outputs and work quality - for example, video view numbers

  • What our priorities are as a Program for WGs' work

  • Is it easier to critique some kinds of WG outputs than others (e.g. outputs that are more quantifiable); and might that lead to some WGs getting harsher critiques than others?

  • How Thursday meetings should go in future - open space, perhaps not recording, perhaps more minimal documentation, discussion of Governance concepts, particularly decentralised governence, rather than making decisions - but with the exception that we might carry over any pending agenda from Tuesdays sessions

  • Tuesdays are the decision-making meeting - Thurs is gentler

  • How to document discursive meetings of this nature - whether simply logging the topics covered would allow the knowledge graph approach that Archives WG is developing to track those topics easily

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • We agreed that when Clement and AdvanceAmeyaw return from the ETH conference and a retrospective/ feedback session is held, it might be useful to invite Felix.

    • [rationale] Due to his longtime work on cross-chain collaboration.

    • [opposing] none

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that the doc "Retrospectives from the past" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GorEmCJzcrq3b73p1XUa8E7yYD7_UQETt9axt89qff4/edit?usp=sharing should be updated with material from the Q1 budget retrospective

    • [rationale] Because we need to keep track of issues and follow up on them

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We will document this meeting in quite a minimal way

    • [rationale] as part of Archives WG's current experiments with knowledge graphs, to see if minimal documentation still enables us to track topics as they develop and are discussed in different sessions

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: cross chain collaboration, Ethereum, cross-chain mindset, Thursday vs Tuesday meeting style, retrospectives, open space, WG outputs, assessing outputs, work quality, adoption, Africa, Documentation, minimal documentation, knowledge graphs

  • emotions: Discursive, gentle, wide-ranging, low attendance, calm

hashtag
AI Sandbox/Think-tank

hashtag
In this meeting we discussed:

  • Meeting Coordination and Introductions: Lord Kizzy welcomed everyone, and Osmium gave a presentation on the overview of the AI Tools Exhibition, talked about the mission, and highlighted the key takeaways and how relevant it is to the Ambassador program.

  • Showcasing the second presentation of the exhibition made by Osmium Spotter Studio: Spotter Studio is a comprehensive platform designed to enhance content creators' workflows by providing advanced analytics, performance tracking, and content optimization tools. With Spotter Studio, users can better understand their audience’s engagement patterns, monetize their content effectively, and create data-driven strategies to maximize their reach and revenue. https://www.canva.com/design/DAGdA7i0tfc/eUjBwtDT1RwZoIHbAKgxxQ/edit

  • a) Overview of the toolset [Detailed Description and Use Cases] b) Architecture and Technology Stack [Library or repository of the framework of AI model or visual or graphical representation of the architecture through diagrams or flow chart] c) Demonstration [live demo or tutorial/ video walkthrough] d) Outcome Report or Results and Impact [ illustration through case studies or showcasing measurable results eg. key performance metrics]

  • Questions were asked and clarity was made on the tool

  • Glimpse of What the upcoming session of AI Roundtable in Think Tank is going to be like by Lordkizzy on this Roundtable: The AI Roundtable and Think Tank sessions are designed to create an interactive environment where participants can share diverse perspectives on artificial intelligence (AI) topics. The discussions focus on exploring ethical dilemmas, technical challenges, and the broader implications of AI on society. The goal is to foster critical thinking, collaborative ideation, and open discussions without the pressure of competition.

Discussion Goals:

  • To examine the societal, economic, and cultural impacts of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

  • To debate emerging frameworks and ethical dilemmas surrounding AI technologies and their applications.

  • To encourage innovation and critical thinking through diverse perspectives and collaborative discussions.

Proposed Discussion Structures:

  • Panel Debate: a. Two teams (proposition and opposition) engage in a structured discussion on a specific AI-related topic. Each team consists of two members who prepare arguments and counterarguments. b. This format allows for in-depth intellectual exchanges and encourages participants to explore different perspectives on the topic.

  • Breakout Discussions: a. Larger groups are divided into smaller teams to discuss the same topic from the proposition and opposition sides. b. This setup promotes open collaboration and critical thinking within smaller groups before reconvening for a collective discussion.

Debate Structure and Format:

a. Panel Debate: Two teams, each consisting of two members, engage in a structured discussion where one side supports the topic and the other opposes it. b. Breakout Discussions: Larger groups are divided into smaller teams, with each team representing either the proposition or the opposition side, fostering collaboration and idea development before joining a larger collective discussion.

The debate structure selection will be determined through a poll that will be created on the Discord Channel.

No Winners or Losers: The focus is on learning and understanding diverse perspectives rather than competition.The format promotes open dialogue and collaboration, providing a safe space for sharing ideas and critical thinking.It aims to deepen understanding of complex issues through collective brainstorming and discussions, enhancing learning outcomes for all participants.

Knowledge-Based Graph for Documentation: Knowledge-based graphs will be created to capture key insights and arguments from the discussions. These graphs will help document and structure the discussions, making it easier to retrieve information and understand complex topics.The graphs will also support collaborative learning by documenting diverse perspectives and facilitating knowledge sharing among participants.

Reports Shared with the Community: Reports will be compiled from the discussions, offering structured analysis of the key arguments and insights shared during the sessions. These reports will be accessible through a centralized platform, ensuring transparency and fostering ongoing engagement within the community for future reference.

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • We decided hold on any payment for now

    • [rationale] Because AGIX is low and it will significantly affect our budget

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agree that the selection of the debate structure to be conducted next week is determined by the most polls shared in the discord channel.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Agree to create graphics for next week's Debate Rountable and share them on social media X SingularityNET Ambassador Program

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] Santos to Document next AI Think Thank Session [assignee] Santos [due] 30 January 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Create a poll in the discord channel to determine what format to use for the Think Thank Roundtable Session. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 6 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Reach out to the Graphics Team and Social media Team of X SNET Program Ambassadors to create graphics and publish to social media for next week's Think Thank RoundTable Session. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 28 February 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: AI TOOLSET EXHIBITION, Spotter Studio, Think Thank RoundTable Session

  • emotions: welcoming, informative, interactive, educational

hashtag
Friday 7th February 2025

hashtag
Video Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: hogantuso [facilitator], Zalfred [documenter], Zalfred, AndrewBen, killy, frosh, Slate, hogantuso, LordKizzy, Malik, SubZero, osmium

  • Purpose: The meeting focused on Discussing the video work group activities.

  • Working Docs:

hashtag
Discussion Points:

  • UPDATE FROM THE TASK MANAGER A quick update from Slate on various tasks assigned within the week. He highlighted that we got more shorts videos than long videos. He raised the question of a missing Town Hall video.

  • UPDATE FROM THE MEETING FACALITATOR A quick update from Tuso and lord kizzy, updating the work group on decisions from the Governance meeting and the recently concluded Town Hal meeting. Adding that there were not much discussed.

  • UPDATE FROM SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGER Andrew Ben gave a precise update highlighting that he posted out 7short videos and 3 long videos. He addressed the panic around the missing Townhall video.

  • UPDATE FROM OSMIUM Osmium gave a swift update on the ASI videos. He added that the videos are ready. However, Osmium expressed concerned on the decline in the project Token's price.

  • BUDGET DISSCUSSIONS Lord kizzy shared with the house that they might be a need to maintain the Q1 budget and perhaps they're need to make slight adjudgments.

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION (SEO) ADOPTION Osmium suggested that the video work group could adopt Search engine adoption in the coming quarters. Additionally, SEO can enhance our online presence. Zalfred agreed but questioned how we could implement that. Lord kizzy added that Osmium should this all out and present to the work group for further deliberations.

    • [rationale] SEO will be a plus to the team.

    • [opposing] considering the budget constrains, we'd still need to further deliberate on this and lastly, we'd need to carefully plan this out and execute it.

  • SELECTION OF VIDOES FOR OUR SPIN-OFF PROJECTS

Lord Kizzy discussed the selection processes we'd use to select our best videos. He added that he might draw a pull for the work group to decide.

  • [rationale] Need for a collective selection of videos.

  • HALTING REWARD DISTRIBUTION Due to the fall in price of the AGIX token, concerns were raised in the work group.Lord kizzy and Osmium suggested that we could halt the reward distributions processes at the moment. lord kizzy added that halting the reward distribution processes will be the next line of action to manage the work group allocations. He also added that rewards could be distributed when the AGIX is bullish to avoid the video work group running short of resources.

    • [rationale] Halting reward distributions.

    • [opposing]

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] lord kizzy to create a pull in the chat for video selection [assignee] LordKizzy [status] todo

  • [action] Osmium to Turn in the ASI Videos [assignee] osmium [status] todo

  • [action] Halting reward distributions [assignee] AndrewBen [status] todo

hashtag
Writers Workgroup

hashtag
Narrative:

Kick-off: The weekly meeting of the writers' workgroup kicked off at 3:10 p.m. Our first discussion was about the February sprint, which is currently running. Everything looks good, and it favors old and new members, unlike previous sprints, where some participants had an edge over others.

In the meeting, we reviewed task progress on the Dework board. Kenichi also asked the Scribblers for article suggestions, which he added to the board right away. He mentioned that he has some drafts to upload, while CjFrankie suggested that Scribes should also be able to create tasks on Dework.

Speaking of engagement, Kenichi mentioned that it would be a good idea to create threads, retweet, and quote articles posted on the SNET X page. This discussion led to questions about when the WWG would get a premium plan. Kenichi suggested that the marketing guild and the WWG could join forces to acquire the premium plan. We also agreed to table the discussion for the next marketing guild call to better understand where each workgroup stands.

Kenichi suggested that there should be a weekly article recap that highlights all the articles published within a week; he also suggested that the weekly Substack digest should also cover these highlights. Following that, CjFrankie expressed his concern about low engagements and interactions with the Substack newsletter. From the backend side of things, we used Substack analytics to analyze our visitors and readers over time. The record shows that the newsletter piques the interest of people across four USA states and in 15 other countries, including Nigeria, Indonesia, and Argentina. Just to mention a few! Having studied this data, Kenichi mentioned that we may start publishing content at specific time zones to help us get the most out of our readers.

Mirror: Our goal and mission for Mirror. XYZ is to continue spreading content to people from all walks of life. In the long run, we’d reward people for reading our articles using NFTs. Role document: Last but not least, Kenichi announced that the role document is officially live, though it will take effect from Q2 2025. Some adjustments have been made—the pupil role has been removed, leaving only the Scribbler and Scribe roles. Starting in Q2, workgroup members will need to meet their thresholds to retain their roles. Those who fail to meet their thresholds will face questions about their continuity. This approach will also help the workgroup onboard more members.

hashtag
Decision Items:

  • The role document for the Writers' Workgroup will be officially live, though it will take effect from Q2 2025.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We decided that going forward, a recap will be created to highlight all articles published within a week. These highlights will also be added to the Substack weekly digest.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

hashtag
Action Items:

  • [action] The writer’s workgroup will meet with the Marketing Guild to discuss purchasing a Twitter Premium subscription. [assignee] kenichi, Mikasa, CJFrankie [due] 14 February 2025 [status] todo

hashtag
Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Twitter premium, Marketing Guild, Role document , Substack

  • emotions: silent, speedy , Collaborative, forward-thinking, newsletter, NFTs, Mirror

PreviousWeek 5NextWeek 7

Last updated