Week 24

Mon 9th Jun - Sun 15th Jun 2025

Tuesday 10th June 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, Tevo, AshleyDawn, guillermolucero, Kateri, CallyFromAuron, Maximilez, Kevin frey, advanceameyaw, Slate, LadyTempestt, hogantuso, Sucre n Spice, Jeffrey Ndarake, Effiom, Clement Umoh, Alfred Itodele

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

This week’s session focused mainly on reviewing our current budget, identifying areas of overspend, and discussing how to move forward more realistically given the current token price and how things are evolving across workgroups.

Peter kicked things off by suggesting we dive into the budget sheet. A few minor overages came up—which initially looked like rounding errors. However, upon closer inspection, the overspend in some areas was more significant and required further attention. Some adjustments had already been made, but some still stood out as needing resolution.

Tevo explained that the increase in the Treasury Guild budget was largely due to the fact that he used the previous quarter budget and he hasn’t done any recent budget for it. This change caused a noticeable jump in the numbers. He also reorganized the budget to clearly differentiate between ongoing activities and new initiatives that the extra budget would support. Regarding the Treasury Guild, Tevo admitted there hadn’t been enough time to conduct the regular discussions that typically justify its expenses. As a result, that budget line appeared somewhat unclear.

Vani raised a critical question—are we now over our overall budget cap, and is this level of spending sustainable? She also asked whether the current Treasury Guild budget was based on weekly sessions, even though the team had informally shifted to a biweekly schedule. Tevo confirmed that the budget assumed weekly activity but noted that they had already begun scaling back due to tight funding. He mentioned there was no leftover budget to pull from, so instead of padding the numbers, they chose to reduce the budget request directly. With the token price being so low, he explained, it's become increasingly difficult to justify maintaining certain activities unless the structure evolves accordingly.

The idea of removing the Treasury Guild line was raised, as it hadn’t been active recently. Tevo wondered if the difference between weekly and bi-weekly payments does impact the budget request. He asked if we want to have less bi-weekly treasury sessions, one month like a vacation for treasury operators, or he goes to the Swarm call to raise this up.

Guillermo joined with some reflections. He noted that while the system is currently under stress, that’s not necessarily a bad thing—it presents a good opportunity to test how resilient our governance structure really is. He emphasized the importance of clearly documenting all decisions so people understand what's happening. He also suggested that not everything requires weekly meetings—monthly sessions might suffice, provided we have solid supporting materials to ensure smooth operations.

Peter asked whether a deadline should be set for core contributor nominations. Tevo didn’t think a deadline was necessary but agreed it might help prompt action from those still uncertain about their roles. Demonix and UknowZork were added to the list of core contributors, though the list remains open for further nominations. Vani asked if there was anyone not yet included who should be, and suggested adding their names to the list for nominations.

During Consent form testing, Peter asked whether selecting a workgroup and seeing the “thanks” message meant the response was already recorded. Vani clarified that it didn’t—nothing is submitted until the “Submit” button is clicked, after which users have the option to submit another response. Peter noted that users are prompted again for their email and anonymity preferences, which Vani confirmed was intentional, as collecting that data is important.

Guillermo asked for the form link, saying he couldn’t find it but wanted to try it out and provide feedback. Vani shared the link in response.

We also discussed using the sentiment survey in the consent process. The goal is to ensure that feedback has a meaningful impact in Q4. Peter added that the previous round of feedback didn’t go well—participation was low, and the questions lacked clarity, making the results unhelpful.

Vani also suggested using the next Town Hall to walk everyone through the governance process in a more accessible way—explaining the “why” and “how” behind the Consent process. Everyone agreed that this was a strong idea.

With no more pressing questions, the meeting was concluded. The hope is that once this consent round and the budget restructuring are finalized, we can shift away from heavy administrative work and return to more creative, inspiring initiatives—such as inviting builders from the ecosystem to showcase what they’re working on. For now, though, the focus remains on tightening operations and improving transparency.

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani will share the consent form in the chat for feedback. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 10 June 2025 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Q3 2025 budget, Consent Process, Core Contributor, Treasury guild, Quarter, Governance, Anonymity, AGIX, USD, Governance Dashboard, Automation, Ambassdor program

  • emotions: informative, Collaborative, detailed, educative, Productive

Thursday 12th June 2025

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

The meeting began with a continuation of the conversation from the last session on the earning gap, specifically from the standpoint of task types.

We began by reviewing the Treasury Dashboard to understand how funds are distributed across various workgroups and guilds, and how their associated tasks are labeled and categorized. During this review, several inconsistencies emerged in the taxonomy, with overlapping or duplicate labels like “documenting” and “documentation.” These inconsistencies make it difficult to conduct a reliable analysis of spending patterns.

This led to a broader discussion on how budgets are being divided, particularly how much is being spent on administrative functions like facilitation, documentation, managing task on dework and coordination. Estimates suggested that nearly 50% of some workgroup budgets go to admin tasks, sparking debate on whether this is justifiable or excessive. While some saw this as potentially excessive, others defended the need that such overhead is vital.

Another area of concern was the high cost of Dework task management, across the ecosystem. Vani pointed out that task management includes more than logging activities, it involves quality control, follow-ups, and support. She also highlighted that over-reliance on time tracking could create pressure and disadvantage contributors who operate at different speeds.

This led to a broader exploration of how to meaningfully distinguish administrative tasks from operational ones. Tevo suggested launching a survey to collect definitions of administrative work from community members, but Vani suggested using a Google document, that it would lead to more consistent and transparent outcomes.

In wrapping up, Peter recognized that the Q3 budgeting cycle is too far along to implement changes now, but will likely affect the Q4 budget.

Discussion Points:

  • Cap on how much people can earn from a particular task type or per workgroup ?

  • What do we think we should be spending most on?

Decision Items:

  • No immediate changes will be made for Q3 since budget processes are already in motion. We agreed that any classification or tooling changes will target Q4.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Allocation, Treasury, Admin Cost, Dework management, Task Classification, Budget caps

  • emotions: Understanding., Accountability

PreviousWeek 23NextWeek 25

Last updated