Week 8

Mon 17th Feb - Sun 23rd Feb 2025

Monday 17th February 2025

Knowledge Base Workgroup

Agenda item 1 - Workgroup Management - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Going over old and new action items

  • Assigning meeting summarizer and reviewer for 17.02.2025

  • How we manage Meeting Summaries - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nT2f4Mo5ySK26W6r2zNLMY-uDKiRNdNRXLzykONUIR4

  • Meeting Summary Template - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VU_VG8z7wnROx0DKsHsXOYshaJAoeZQ8dYZlRWYMSzE/

Action Items:

  • [action] Effiom will draft the meeting summary and upload it to the summary tool [assignee] Effiom [due] 24 February 2025 [status] done

  • [action] Tevo will review and publish the Meeting Summary on Discord [assignee] Tevo [due] 24 February 2025 [status] done

Agenda item 2 - Finalise Quarterly Report and Proposal - [resolved]

Discussion Points:

  • Are there any pending async tasks before we submit the report and proposal?

  • Knowledge Base WG Q1 2025 Report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I1KAFNsyQTtnXduB-q34MXsR63q-3g5eIbZh4AKdb-8/

  • Does the Q2 proposal fit within the WG's budget cap?

  • Knowledge Base WG Proposal Q2 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/10TjExpU7uScZ0k9FtJLLLOhXZk_El0enKVC9RSYj_Wo/

  • Updating the Community Engagement section in the report

Decision Items:

  • Continue with monthly Knowledge Base sessions, and continue updating Knowledge Base GitBook

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Report and Proposal to be submitted once the deadline has been fixed, as we are done [assignee] Effiom, Tevo [due] 3 March 2025 [status] todo

Agenda item 3 - Review Category Descriptions - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Category Descriptions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NzpysgIDsZFigFJz4Tiik3h2l0X4FJTJC4xEbGiwsUw/

  • We reviewed 5 sub-sections of the categories

Action Items:

  • [action] We will continue the category descriptions while script development is ongoing [assignee] all [due] 3 March 2025 [status] in progress

Agenda item 4 - GitBook, GitHub, and Markdown Automation - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

  • Updates on GitBook and GitHub

  • Updates on the current markdown automation progress

  • Knowledge Base structure is visible now on GitBook

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Miro Board, Workgroup Management, GitBook, GitHub, Budget, Category Descriptions, Q2 2025 proposal, Q2 2025 budget, Budget caps, Q1 2025 quarterly report, Miro to GitBook, Markdown, community engagement

Tuesday 18th February 2025

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

We signed off Guillermo's infographics for the Q2 decision, and discussed how best to share them and what relevant links should be posted with them.

We agreed on an exchange rate of $0.30 for Q2 2025 budgets

We provisionally agreed the Q2 2025 budget for GovWG, pending any rethinks before the submission date of 10th March. We looked at the WG task sheet, and what surplus we have; and we discussed briefly whether we can still afford to continue with backlog documentation, or whether we should simply record "No summary given" for uncompleted summaries - to be discussed

We discussed whether and how to implement the ideas around WG minimum budgets suggested in the “Budget caps for Q2” discussion doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kVd_4Ih-lSdMoIcmVeOS3_H3aqOdnMmMG6o1WqGTx1w/edit?usp=sharing. We decided yes, we should discuss how different WGs might approach decising on their operational minimum and what would be included in it, and that the next WG sync call would be a good place to start; so we added it to the WG Sync Call rolling agenda.

Discussion Points:

  • Agreeing publicity and infographics for the Q2 budget process

  • Agreeing exchange rate for Q2 budgets

  • Agreeing draft GovWG budget for Q2 2025

  • Minimum WG budgets

Decision Items:

  • We signed off Guillermo's infographics for the Q2 2025 budget process, pending a couple of small changes (e.g. adding the agreed exchange rate)

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that Peter and Vani will both post the infographics; and that when the timeline and/or the "Take part in governance" infographics are posted, the post will include a link to the list of Core Contributors, and the context-setting doc for Core Contributors; and the "Submit your WG budgets" will be posted together with links to the Budget Planner, the Budget Caps spreadsheet, and the context-stetting doc for WGs

    • [rationale] to ensure that people can easily find the info they need

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed the exchange rate for Q2 budgets will be $0.30

    • [rationale] because the rate in recent days has been under $0.35 and falling; and because, for WG budget management, it would be preferable to set it too low than too high

    • [opposing] $0.35 was also suggested, but the majority preferred $0.30

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We provisionally agreed the draft Q2 budget for Gov WG, including taking c. $800 from reserves to cover elements that we cannot otherwise afford. Changes can still be made up until the submission date of 10th March.

    • [rationale] Token price being low, we will need to take from reserves in order to be able to do any additional sessions (e.g. a retrospective, as we always do) and to cover content creation such as infographics. We might not spend all of what we plan to take from our reserves.

    • [opposing] Some concerns were raised about the fact that doing this could mean we go in to Q3 2025 with no WG reserves

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • We agreed that the idea of WG minimum budgets should be discussed in the next WG sync call; covering how different WGs approach deciding on their operational minimum budgets, and what would be included in a minimum for different WGs. We added this to the WG Sync Call rolling agenda.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani and Peter to share Guillermo's infographics regularly over the next few weeks, together with links to relevant docs [assignee] CallyFromAuron, PeterE [due] 10 March 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, WG reserves, Reserves, WG Sync calls, Core Contributors , publicity, Infographics, consent process, minimum budgets

  • emotions: gloomy, decisive, Organised

Thursday 20th February 2025

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

We noted that in Q1, Process Guild voluntarily gave up 1,000 AGIX to help with budget fitting (reducing their cap from 2,000 to 1,000); so this should be restored in Q2. Since we have already said that budget caps will remain the same this Quarter as they were in Q1, the only way to do this is to give Process Guild 1,000 AGIX from Program reserves. We also agreed that we definitely need to reassess budget caps for Q3; and that this should be done in the light of the discussion on minimum budgets (the minimum a WG needs in order to operate).

Anonymity: Peter noted that it can be difficult to resolve objections when the objectors are not present in the meeting and prepared to "un-anonymise" themselves.

Vani said it can be difficult to raise concerns - especially serious, "whistle-blowing" type concenrns - without anonymity. How will we make sure the space feels safe to raise things?

We recapped the point made in the previous meeting that the process is not anonymous now, because anyone with access to the Ambassador Gmail account can see who said what - but it's not clear if people fully realise that.

LordKizzy confirmed that the Governance dashboard being developed in R&D Guild will keep user identities anonymous to the public, but admins will still have access to this information - this raises the question of who should be an admin.

LadyTempestt stated that she doesn't feel OK raising issues in the budget consent forms ever since she found out that it is not confidential, so she just abstains.

We noted that it would be possible to create the consent forms on a different Google account that only 1 person has access to (perhaps Peter, given his particular role in the ecosystem).

Guillermo said that a non-anonymous consent process can foster a stronger community. When you fear to give your opinion whatever it is, it's not good - raising concerns openly will improve our professional relationships and help us learn to accept criticism. The planned Governance dashboard hopes to address this, and to make it easier for people to raise concerns transparently. Vani said that while this can work, sometimes lack of anonymity means people give less honest feedback; so we get an apparent "consensus" that isn't real. Also, any negative effects of removing anonymity are likely to fall more heavily on those who are already marginalized, or who feel the least confident or the least safe. Guillermo countered that having anonymity can make it more likely that people will raise unfair or nonsense concerns. Kizzy pointed out that if people do not attend the discussion meetings, they don't know that their concern has been resolved, and will raise it again next time, so we go round in circles. Guillermo suggested we could make it an option when the new Governance dashboard is built - people could choose whether or not they want to be anonymous. Vani referenced a previous Governance meeting where it was suggested that we need an independent person or group who maintain oversight, but are not otherwise involved in budget decisions, and are neutral. It was agreed back then that it would be difficult to find such a person

We noted that by the end of Q2, the Governance dashboard should be ready, and this might change things - so this Quarter might be the only chance we get to try out a non-anonymous consent process and see how it goes.

We checked the new sheet for Q2 which LordKizzy has added to the Budget Planner, and agreed the additions he needed to make to it.

Discussion Points:

  • Process Guild's budget cap for Q2 2025

  • Need to reassess budget caps for Q3

  • Anonymity in decision-making

  • New Q2 sheet in the Budget Planner

Decision Items:

  • We decided to add 1,000 AGIX from Program Reserves to Process Guild's Q2 budget cap

    • [rationale] because Process Guild agreed last Quarter to voluntarily give up 1,000 AGIX to help with budget-fitting, but this was only ever intended as a temporary measure. When we agreed in a previous meeting that budget caps should stay the same as they were for Q1, we forgot about this.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that we will reassess / recalculate the budget caps for Q3, and will do it in the light of discussion of WG budget minimums

    • [rationale] Several WGs are unhappy with their caps; and we cannot continue to "top up" Process Guild from reserves indefinitely; so there needs to be an adjustment; and we need to ensure that minimums are covered.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed to continue the discussion on anonymity next meeting.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani and Peter to share Guillermo's infographics regularly over the next few weeks, together with links to relevant docs [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 10 March 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Peter to create an anonymous Googleform to ask people whether they have ever not said what they think in the consent process because it is not anonymous. [assignee] PeterE [due] 27 February 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy to make agreed tweaks to the new sheet in the budget planner, adding formulae and budget cap totals. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 27 February 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, Reserves, consent process, Process Guild, Budget caps, anonymity, R&D guild, governance dashboard, safe space

  • emotions: decisive, Organised, Interactive, thoughtful

PreviousWeek 7NextWeek 9

Last updated