Week 26
Mon 23rd Jun - Sun 29th Jun 2025
Tuesday 24th June 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, photogee, CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, AshleyDawn, Maxmilez, Sucre n Spice, AJ, Alfred Itodele, advanceameyaw, Évéline Trinité, Jeffrey Ndarake
Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Guillermo began his presentation by clarifying the importance of a soft launch for the governance system dashboard emphasizing the need for initial debugging and testing before fully integrating it into the live consent process. He explained that the system was already live and began walking through it with a screen share. He demonstrated the login process, which currently uses Discord as the authentication method, though integrations with Google and others may follow. The login leads to a platform where users have distinct roles like Super Admins, Admins, Core Contributors, and Community Members. Each role has defined access levels. For example, community members can read and submit proposals but cannot vote in the consent process.
Guillermo noted that what was being shown was a draft and not a final. He demonstrated how core contributors can navigate the system: logging in, accessing the dashboard, and interacting with different sections like Education, Documentation, and Proposals. The proposal section is functional, with the ability to comment and vote, offering upvotes, abstentions, and downvotes. Comments can be categorized as suggestions, concerns, or arguments, using a checkbox system. However, he mentioned issues raised during R&D discussions, like mismatches between selected checkboxes and the rationale provided.
The platform structure allows for quarterly instances like Q4 Reports. Each workgroup will submit a proposal representing their report, budget, and key contributions. These proposals will be archived and displayed under specific instances in the dashboard. Guillermo showed an example test proposal from the R&D group, which included integrated links and structured content. Although some data had been reset due to development iterations, he reiterated that the platform is ready to demonstrate proposal creation and voting flow later in Town Hall.
He then introduced the collaboration and skill database, describing it as an interactive platform where users can create profiles with bios, selected workgroups, skills, and other metadata like language and location. This directory will allow searching by name or workgroup and enable profile editing, image uploading, CV attachment, and future messaging features. He highlighted that availability status, wallet address options, and tagging workgroup affiliations were in place. Vani raised a wallet address privacy concern. She stated that it shouldn't be a piece of public information. Guillermo addressed the concerns stating that while the system architecture supports wallet integration, it will be phased in later and it will respect user privacy preferences. Only core contributors will have access to certain governance functionalities, and visibility settings will be configurable.
Guillermo emphasized the importance of keeping the platform practical and building only what is useful. He noted that the second round of consent he participated in helped shape the platform’s design and features. When a workgroup lead creates a proposal, they will be able to edit it, track changes, and register revisions with timestamps. More than one representative per workgroup will be permitted to input proposals to avoid bottlenecks.
Moving to visuals, Guillermo showed a Figma design mockup of the platform. The left navigation highlights active instances like Q4 reports. Each proposal page is represented with icons, comment counts, and contributors. He noted that Educational content, status indicators, and embedded infographics will support the consent process. He explained how voting will be done via a pop-up selection (e.g., object, consent, abstain) with rationale input captured in the database rather than Google Forms.
He also shared an organizational chart labeling workgroups based on their focus—Education, Communication, and Strategy explaining that while he doesn’t favor rigid segmentation, this visual helps identify overlap and strategic alignment. He asked for feedback on what was missing, what should be removed, and what could be improved.
Guillermo emphasized that while the platform’s architecture is solid, its value depends on collaborative input and refinement. He reminded the group that contributions like tasks, suggestions, or ideas should be valued and that a consistent taxonomy and task-labeling system could improve both visibility and budgeting clarity. For instance, showing the proportion of funds spent on different categories (admin, outreach, and the like) would help strategic planning.
He closed with reflections on integrating other tools like GitHub or DeWork, noting that the inconsistency in how teams document tasks make standardized integration difficult. Nonetheless, the system being built could evolve into a broader contribution-tracking model, not just for governance but for the entire community’s work. He concluded with light humor about pulling this all together with minimal resources but with optimism for improving it in the next test phase.
With a few minutes remaining in the session, Peter brought up the need to create a facilitation schedule for the upcoming months, noting that planning currently ends after this week. He proposed a simple rotation system, given there are two governance meetings per week, and he invited attendees to indicate their interest in facilitating either by raising hands or using the chat.
Vani helped prompt volunteers, mentioning names like Alfred, Maxmilez, and UknowZork, who were already in the facilitation rotation. She offered to compile the list and update the facilitation sheet. She also asked Advance if he was up for it which he stated that he would not be able to due to his busy and tight schedule while Éveline tentatively expressed interest in the future.
Peter noted that we already have five names, enough to cover the first five sessions of the next quarter. As the meeting wrapped up Peter asked if there were any final topics to address. Vani informed the group that she wouldn’t be able to attend the upcoming Town Hall and that others might need to cover her usual workgroup reports.
The session closed with thanks to Guillermo for his dashboard demo. Guillermo apologized for any messiness but expressed optimism about the system’s progress. The meeting came to an end with Peter reminding the workgroup to attend the Town Hall that was scheduled for later today.
Discussion Points:
Discussion on Governance dashboard
Discussion on the upcoming quarter facilitation roster
Action Items:
[action] Vani to post the facilitation rotation request in the governance channel to gather more names. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 24 June 2025 [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Proposal, Governance, Consent Process, Workgroups, Contributions, Treasury dashboard, Facilitation, Rationale
emotions: informative, insightful, Collaborative, Discursive, Ideating
Thursday 26th June 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, PeterE, guillermolucero, LadyTempestt, Maxmilez, advanceameyaw, Alfred Itodele, AshleyDawn, Duke, Évéline Trinité, Jeffrey Ndarake, martinsoki, CJFrankie, photogee, Sucre n Spice, Rems, Iain Wentworth
Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting
Narrative:
Vani opened the discussion by reflecting on the Education Guild’s consent process. While the guild received enough consents and only two objections and abstentions, there were lingering concerns raised. She questioned whether these concerns should be taken back to the guild or at least logged for future tracking. One objection claimed their points weren’t addressed, while others seemed satisfied. There was confusion over the Education Guild's role regarding the governance framework. Some thought they were proposing one, but in reality, they were planning to educate people about the existing one. Vani emphasized that misunderstandings were likely the root of most concerns. A similar issue arose with a lack of clarity about their Q2/Q3 budget reporting. Vani suggested that moving forward, guilds should present clearer documentation, especially regarding budget allocations and rewards distribution.
The Gamers work group faced one objection and some similar concerns about missing rationale and links, again pointing to the importance of clearer reporting rather than any failure in delivery. Marketing, however, raised more concern. Although they technically passed, the number of abstentions suggested unease. Comments noted inconsistencies in data, unclear calculations, and a perceived overspend on tasks. Vani raised the ongoing issue of how time and task pricing are evaluated reminding us that many guilds pay per task, not per hour. There was also criticism around analytics and outcome clarity, with a call for a better interpretation of marketing impact.
R&D received two objections and six abstentions, mostly due to misunderstandings. Objections to uncertain budget items ignored the fact that some of their funds are determined by community voting. Vani argued that the objection should’ve been marked invalid more clearly, as R&D had explained their internal mini-funding process. Some feedback confused Q2 and Q3 timelines. She noted that clearer communication and more accurate tracking could have prevented those abstentions.
The Strategy Guild only reached 50% consent. Though technically passing, Vani called attention to fundamental concerns, especially around the usefulness of their work and lack of responses to objections. Some budget lines lacked reporting or were vaguely deferred. Concerns were not adequately acknowledged, suggesting a deeper issue with engagement and transparency.
The Translation work group faced objections due to misunderstandings again. Some believed only four translations were delivered, while the real number (considering multiple languages) was far higher. Vani admitted she forgot to list an objection regarding AI alternatives for translation. Still, most abstentions stemmed from not reading the explanation in the shared sheets.
Video Work Group received three objections and three abstentions. The main concern was producing content that was not being viewed. The lack of responses to feedback also stood out. Writers Work Group had notable discomfort around reward distribution, particularly to one individual. Another concern was the disproportionately high reward for management versus content creation.
Peter joined, emphasizing the need to keep tracking objections across quarters. He noted that there is already a Q3 objection summary document, and he suggested continuing this practice to ensure consistency. However, he raised a concern about work groups dismissing objections as invalid without explanation. Even if technically allowed, it’s more productive to acknowledge and respond to them. He noted that only a few groups (marketing, gamers, education) submitted proper documents addressing concerns.
Vani speculated that some work groups may not bother responding because they’re confident they’ll hit the 80% consent threshold anyway. This points to potential flaws in the structure of the consent process.
Love suggested distinguishing between new and recurring concerns and recommended that repeated issues across quarters should trigger a mandatory response. If multiple people consistently raise the same issue, it must be taken seriously, regardless of how it's phrased.
Peter agreed and added that while the objections are being documented, the process needs better integration. Vani noted that repeated concerns are often phrased slightly differently, making them hard to track unless analyzed carefully. Peter mentioned that the dropdown tags introduced to categorize issues aren’t always being used correctly.
Peter admitted this topic hasn’t been treated with urgency, and some issues are still unresolved. He proposed using the remaining time to map out future topics and planning. Vani supported this, noting some themes like work quality have been brought up repeatedly but still lack a defined process. She proposed setting a date for these topics and having facilitators come prepared with summaries and the next steps.
Peter suggested syncing workgroup updates on Mondays and asked if it should be mandatory for workgroups to share regular updates. Maxmilez agreed and stressed that workgroups should be required to give updates at Town Hall meetings.
Guillermo added that internal and external communication around updates must be improved. He shared that the new governance dashboard will help track contributions and concerns, but more work is needed, particularly around defining “contributions” and “participation.” He suggested holding a dedicated meeting to refine these concepts.
Peter and Guillermo both agreed that tracking concerns, especially repeated ones, must become automated and linked with the governance tool. They also emphasized that the purpose of the consent process should not be just symbolic it must have the power to trigger real consequences. They asked that if every work group gets funding every time, what’s the process achieving?
Vani reflected on this and said perhaps the consent process is being treated more as an informational tool rather than a regulatory one. That could be a danger, especially if bad actions ever enter the system. She noted that repeated issues with no accountability can lead to exploitation. She also suggested that we may be organically shifting toward a consensus-based model for decision making one that relies more on collective understanding than just voting thresholds.
Peter acknowledged a message in the chat that emphasized the difference between outcomes and outputs, pointing out that Vani had been the most consistent advocate for clarifying that distinction. He shifted the conversation toward organizing upcoming agenda topics. He asked whether the group should try planning multiple sessions, or if some topics should take priority outside the already scheduled retrospective. He suggested that the top two items on the agenda felt like high-priority (“level one”) issues, but also noted that high priority doesn’t necessarily mean they must be discussed first. For example, he believed the discussion on workgroup syncing could be handled quickly though he admitted he might be biased.
Vani proposed reviving the facilitation roster and letting people volunteer to facilitate specific upcoming topics. She suggested attaching names to topics as a way to organically schedule discussions. In response, Peter observed that UknowZork, Alfred, and Guillermo had already volunteered to facilitate one of the sessions. Vani then claimed the Outcomes vs Outputs topic, proposing it be scheduled toward the end of July rather than as the next immediate session.
Peter agreed and began rearranging the schedule accordingly. He asked which topic should be next week’s focus and said he would finalize the timeline after the call. He suggested the Recurring Concerns topic might be a natural follow-up to the Retrospective, and asked Vani if she wanted to lead it. Vani agreed, saying she had already been looking into recurring objections and might have something concrete to present by then. With no objections or strong alternative suggestions from others, Peter confirmed the plan to proceed with that sequence. He then reopened the topic of anonymity, noting that while the current feedback process isn’t anonymous, some participants have expressed concerns that this might reduce openness. He proposed the group should agree on a default approach for the next quarter and stick with it until there's consensus to change.
Peter noted this is a larger topic than could be addressed fully in the meeting, which had already run over time. He wrapped up by pointing out that most contributions were made by only a few people and encouraged broader participation in future discussions. He reminded everyone that the governance topic list is open for anyone to contribute to and dropped the editable link in the chat.
With no further input, the meeting concluded, and Peter reminded attendees of upcoming sessions, including the African Guild call.
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Workgroup, Concerns, Objections, Quarter, Budget , Consent Process, Governance topics, Abstentions
emotions: Interactive, detailed, collaborative, educative, Interesting, contributive, engaging
AI Sandbox/Think-tank
Type of meeting: Think-Tank
Present: osmium [facilitator], Gorga Siagian [documenter], LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, Alfred Itodele, John Zakariya, UKnowZork, Santos
Purpose: AI Sandbox/ Think Tank #34 - Think Tank Discussion/Debate
In this meeting we discussed:
In this meeting we discussed:
Introduction and welcome: The meeting kicked off with Lordkizzy welcoming everyone and Osmium shared the agenda for the day’s meeting
Discussion on Agenda item: Osmium displayed the Agenda item and he proposed that we have discussions and debate on it and osmium welcomed John Zakariya and explained about the AI Sandbox/Think-Thank meeting.
Pro-Human Attribution: "AI is just a tool — authorship belongs to the human." AdvanceAmeyaw presented foundational pro-human position: AI is just a tool, authorship belongs to humans who create and control AI systems.AI systems are fundamentally designed and programmed by humans, meaning that the creativity and intent behind their functionality originate from human authorship. The data used to train AI models is sourced from human-generated content, reinforcing the idea that AI operates as an extension of human knowledge and capabilities. Legal and ethical considerations regarding AI outputs emphasize that accountability and ownership should rest with the humans who develop and deploy these technologies. Santos said that AI is an assistant that enhances human capabilities ("we should [use] AI assistant") but stresses that humans should remain in charge ("pro-human"). They acknowledge AI’s potential but may be wary of it surpassing human control, emphasizing that its programming binds its actions.Lord_Kizzy used a pencil analogy: humans decide intent and usage of tools, making humans accountable for outcomes rather than the tool itself. Humans possess the cognitive ability to determine how tools are used, which directly influences the outcomes of their actions. The intent behind using a tool, such as a pencil, is rooted in human decision-making, making individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions. Accountability for negative outcomes resulting from tool usage emphasizes the ethical responsibility of humans over the tools themselves. UknowZork Said Ai is not just a tool for me . It’s a powerful tool that I use to streamline tasks, brainstorm creatively and make decisions more effectively. It enhance my work but doesn’t replace critical thinking.
Discussion of Clark and Chalmers' 1998 extended mind theory suggesting AI extends human cognitive capabilities rather than replacing them. AI can enhance human cognitive capabilities by providing additional resources for problem-solving, decision-making, and information processing, rather than replacing human thought. The theory encourages a collaborative relationship between humans and AI, suggesting that technology can be integrated into cognitive processes to improve efficiency and creativity. Kantian ethics perspective introduced: only beings capable of moral reasoning can be held responsible, supporting human authorship.Only beings capable of moral reasoning, such as humans, can be held accountable for their actions, establishing a clear distinction between human authorship and machine output. Kantian ethics emphasizes the importance of intention and rationality in moral decision-making, reinforcing the idea that true authorship requires the ability to make ethical choices. This perspective supports the notion that while AI can assist in generating content, it lacks the moral reasoning necessary to claim authorship or responsibility for its outputs. Terminology debate emerged over 'ownership' vs 'authorship' - ownership deemed too authoritative and potentially problematic for future AI development. The distinction between 'ownership' and 'authorship' reflects differing views on the relationship between humans and AI, with 'ownership' suggesting control and authority over AI outputs. Concerns about 'ownership' arise from its implications for accountability and ethical considerations, particularly as AI systems become more autonomous.The preference for 'authorship' emphasizes the creative and intellectual contributions of humans in the development and use of AI, fostering a collaborative rather than a hierarchical relationship.
Pro-Machine Attribution: “AI systems are independent enough to merit co-authorship or full attribution.” Advanced cited MIT research showing decline in human critical thinking due to LLM usage, contradicting extended cognition theory. This finding challenges the extended cognition theory, which posits that tools like LLMs should enhance cognitive capabilities rather than diminish them. The research suggests that while LLMs can improve efficiency in tasks, they may inadvertently reduce the depth of critical thinking and problem-solving skills in individuals. Alfred argument that AI can be both a tool and have authorship, depending on the context in which it is used. He uses the analogy of a calculator to explain this nuance: AI can act as a tool (such as a calculator), but it can also be considered a “creator” if its contribution is dominant. Alfred pointed out as a tool: If AI only assists the process (e.g., finding research data), authorship remains with humans. As a “creator”: If the AI produces a complete work (e.g., a directly copy-pasted blog article), authorship should go to the AI. Gorga Said that AI has not been independent enough to be considered an author or given full attribution rights. While AI can help significantly, it lacks the autonomy, intention, and responsibility that are the basis of authorship. Therefore, the role of AI should be recognized as that of a tool, not an author. This maintains the integrity of authorship, while remaining transparent to AI contributions. In the future, this attitude may change as technology advances, but for now, authorship remains a human responsibility. Kizzy emphasized human adaptability and efficiency gains from tool usage throughout history, from abacus to modern calculators. The introduction of tools like the abacus and calculators has allowed individuals to perform complex tasks more quickly and accurately, reducing cognitive load. This evolution in tool usage reflects a broader trend where technology serves to augment human capabilities rather than replace them, fostering continuous learning and adaptation. Alfred proposed dual perspective: AI can be both tool and deserving of authorship depending on context and level of human involvement. Authorship may be attributed to AI when it generates content or solutions independently, especially in cases where minimal human input is involved, such as simple prompts or commands.The context of use is crucial; in complex tasks requiring significant human insight and decision-making, authorship remains with the human, while AI serves merely as a supportive tool.
Decision Items:
Conduct a formal debate/discussion session next week using the insights gained today as a foundation.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Publicize next week's debate session to attract larger audience [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 3 July 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kateri is to document the next meeting session [assignee] Kateri [due] 3 July 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lord_Kizzy will prepare a plan for open discussion format for next week's session [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 3 July 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Discussion/Debate Session, AI is just a tool, Pro-Human Attribution, Theoretical Foundation, Pro-Machine Attribution, authorship, AI independence, AI authorship, attribution, extended mind, andy clarke, david chalmers
emotions: Interactive, Insightful, Informative, Productive, Welcoming
Last updated