Week 25

Mon 16th Jun - Sun 22nd Jun 2025

Tuesday 17th June 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron, Alfred Itodele, AndrewBen, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinité, guillermolucero, hogantuso, Kateri, Maxmilez, Slate, Sucre n Spice

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

The meeting began with Peter presenting the Consent Process results, followed by a brief exploration of the findings. All Workgroups passed the quorum threshold, which was set at 17%. The Workgroup with the lowest interaction was the Knowledge Base, with 10 contributors per consent, but it still met the quorum requirement.

We all noted the progress made in this quarter's Consent Process—33 people participated, marking a clear increase from the previous quarter.

We then reviewed the Workgroups that received objections to determine whether those objections were valid. Several key themes that emerged were whether Workgroups are evidencing their impact/outcomes - whether groups have unallocated reserves that they should be spending; and whether WGs have a clear "roadmap" of what they intend to do.

Vani noted that it is up to the Workgroups to decide whether they want to respond to the objections. She also emphasized the need to track recurring issues and include them in our reports. She proposed adding a new agenda item: “How do we handle objections that cannot be resolved within the timeframe of the Consent Process?” Peter supported the idea, saying it would be valuable to have that discussion. Slate raised a question about how Workgroups should respond to objections. Both Peter and Vani responded, stating that a clear document outlining the objections should suffice.

For Consent Round 2 (same as last quarter) we concluded that no new objections may be raised. However, contributors can object to a Workgroup they've previously consented to if they now agree with existing objections, They can also consent to a Workgroup that they've previously objected to if they feel that the Workgroup have adequately addressed the issues.

Kateri also shared in the chat that she believes Workgroups should make it a priority to attend the monthly sync meetings. This would help members stay informed about ongoing progress and gain insights into each guild’s work.

We discussed anonymity in the Consent Process and learned that only 23.7% of contributors were uncomfortable with the lack of anonymization. Vani asked whether we are still planning to conduct sentiment analysis for the ongoing Consent Process. Peter responded that while it would be beneficial, he’s unsure if it can be integrated during the current process.

Wrapping up Peter also suggested that, moving forward, we should schedule the first Consent Process results meeting for two hours instead of one.

Decision Items:

  • The following Workgroups received no objections, so their budgets have passed: African Guild AI Ethics Sandbox/Think Tank Archives Governance Workgroup LatAm Moderators Onboarding Workgroup Process Guild Treasury Guild Treasury Automation Knowledge Base and GitHub PBL also passed - (Note: They have requested no budget for Q3.)

The following Workgroups that have at least one objection will be included in the 2nd round of the consent process. The Education Guild has 3 objections - one of the objections pointed out that a specific person in the guild keeps getting rewards that are too high and this can damage decentralization. Gamers Guild has 2 objections Marketing Guild has 2 objections R&D has 1 objection Strategy Guild has 1 objection Translation Workgroup has 2 objections Video Workgroup has 2 objections Writers Workgroup – 2 objections See Doc here: [Q3 2025 Budgets: Consent round 1 objection summary -https://docs.google.com/document/d/17zH0s6dl0_tDTgjuCtLCmczHbYIYpHCqz_6zY7OD0n0/edit?usp=sharing]

Action Items:

  • [action] We decided to create a document listing all objections, marking those that were considered potentially invalid during today’s meeting. This will be shared in the next few days. [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Consent Process, Core Contributor, Anonymity, Sentiments, Objections, Quorum, Participation in governance, WG Sync calls, measuring outcomes, impact, Workgroup reserves, Abstentions

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

Thursday 19th June 2025

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

The meeting focused on refining the process of tracking and addressing objections, especially recurring concerns raised by contributors across multiple quarters. One key agenda item was the preparation of the second round consent form, which will be modeled after the previous quarter’s version to ensure consistency.

We also revisited a pending discussion on disparities between high and lower earners in the community. Regarding the plan to create a Google Form to gather input from lower earners, Peter suggested discussing the form questions asynchronously in the Discord channel before proceeding.

The conversation then shifted to how objections can be effectively tracked and followed up on from quarter to quarter. Vani pointed out a recurring pattern where certain issues are raised repeatedly in one quarter, disappear the next, and then resurface later. She emphasized the importance of systematically tracking these objections and shared several documents from previous quarters that attempt to capture this feedback.

On objection tracking, Vani referenced several past documents and retrospectives and emphasized the need to collate them. She proposed a spreadsheet organized workgroup by workgroup and quarter by quarter, though acknowledged the effort required. She noted that it was necessary to extract relevant working document from our documentation archives. The idea of using a spreadsheet to track objections over time was also proposed, with Peter suggesting the governance dashboard for streamlined tracking.

We continued an ongoing discussion about how to address work group outputs that may not meet quality standards. The conversation focused on creating a safe and constructive environment for feedback, separate from the formal budget consent process. The group agreed that linking feedback on work quality directly to budget approval can make work groups feel their funding is under threat, which may discourage open dialogue. Love highlighted the lack of a neutral space for offering feedback, while Guillermo shared that he has found external insights valuable in improving his work. Vani reiterated the previously raised idea of implementing a quarterly anonymous feedback mechanism to encourage honest, depersonalized input.

The group then discussed the importance of setting guidelines for constructive feedback. Love emphasized that feedback should focus on the effectiveness of contributions, not minor imperfections. Vani agreed, cautioning against nitpicking and encouraging feedback that connects to prior concerns or repeated patterns.

Finally, Vani highlighted the importance of understanding the value of the work group's initiatives, noting that many comments have emerged during the consent process. Love supported the idea of soliciting feedback from a broader audience, while Guillermo suggested incorporating this feedback into the sentiment analysis they are refurbishing. They agreed to craft a post to gather opinions before finalizing any decisions

Discussion Points:

  • Tracking objections raised in the consent process

  • Creating spaces to raise issues around the quality of WGs' work, outside the consent process and not related to budget approval

Decision Items:

  • Governance dashboard integration plan presented; includes historical data analytics capabilities with a demo scheduled for June 24th.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • A new survey targeting lower earners will be created. It is expected to be completed by the end of the quarter.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Prep the second round consent form [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 20 June 2025 [status] done

  • [action] Drafting the google form to gather views on earnings from lower earners in the community [assignee] PeterE [due] 30 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Create retrospective summary document for next quarter retrospective process [assignee] LadyTempestt [due] 30 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] The team agreed to create and share a public post to gather these perspectives before moving forward [due] 25 June 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Objections, Consent Process, Working documents, Consent dashboard, Anonymity

  • emotions: Determined, forward-looking

PreviousWeek 24NextWeek 26

Last updated