Week 12
Mon 17th Mar - Sun 23rd Mar 2025
Monday 17th March 2025
Knowledge Base Workgroup
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Tevo, Effiom [facilitator], Effiom, advanceameyaw [documenter], effiom, tevo, advanceameyaw, Jeffrey Ndarake, UknowZork, Alfred Itodole
Purpose: Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Agenda item 1 - Introductions and New Member Onboarding - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
KBWG new membership onboarding and feedback
Walkthrough of KBWG to new member
Anyone new here who wants to get onboarded? Onboarding and feedback form
Action Items:
[action] The new member to fill in the KBWG onboarding form [assignee] all [due] 3 March 2025 [status] in progress
Agenda item 2 - Workgroup Management - Dework Tasks - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Dework task reward allocation for categories descriptions
Assigning meeting summarizer and reviewer for 17.03.2025
Drafting Quarter 2 report
Action Items:
[action] Advance will draft the meeting summary and upload it to the summary tool. [status] todo
[action] Effiom will review and publish the Meeting Summary on Discord [status] todo
[action] Drafting Q2 report would be assigned in the next session [status] todo
Agenda item 3 - Review and Update Knowledge Base Gitbook - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
[Category Description] (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NzpysgIDsZFigFJz4Tiik3h2l0X4FJTJC4xEbGiwsUw/edit?tab=t.0)
Where do we update? Making update in the source files (google docs and miro for now)
Gitbook automation update depends on what we are doing next quarter.
[Gitbook link] (https://ambassadorss-organization.gitbook.io/knowledge-base/value-assessment/how-do-we-recognize-value)
Action Items:
[action] We would continue description of the main and sub-categories for the headers left [status] todo
[action] Create task for categories descriptions done so far [status] todo
[action] Align on the categories description we’ve done_ASSIGNEE_Effiom, Advance [status] todo
Agenda item 4 - Plan Next Quarter Roadmap - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Scheduling of activities and tasks for Q2
Async organizing process documentation - End to end Process video creation
Decision Items:
Decide on our next session who will do the resource collection
We agreed our meeting days for next quarter would be on 15.04.2025, 13.05.2025, and 03.06.2025, all at 10AM UTC
ChatGPT Costs to be included in the Q3 proposal as we forgot to include in Q2 Budget Sheet (currently have to take funds from other line items)
Action Items:
[action] Create a detailed End To End Process on Miro Board to update GitBook + make a video of that [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Ambassador GitBook, Miro Board, Project Management, Dework, Category Descriptions, roadmap, Q2, Schedule
emotions: detailed, collaborative
Strategy Guild
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Clement Umoh [facilitator], CJFrankie [documenter], Clement Umoh, CJFrankie, PeterE, Ayo, esewilliams, Eric Davies, Effiom, Alfred Itodole, Maxmilez, Jeffrey Ndarake, Évéline Trinité
Purpose: The monthly meeting of the Strategy Guild featuring discussions around budget, updates, and looking ahead!
Narrative:
Kick-off: The monthly meeting of the strategy guild started strong with Clement as he welcomed everyone to the first official meeting in March. Then we skimmed through the action items and agreed with the minutes of the last meeting—held on January 27th.
Updates on Q1 Workshop by Ese: Ese shared an update on the Q1Workshop, which is currently in progress! She stated that a few people have filled out the form, which is expected to close in the coming weeks—the date wasn’t specified! Ayo applauded her and said that the process could be a bit faster so that she could present the research work in the last town hall session.
SingularityNET AI Marketplace by Clement: The meeting featured Clement Umoh, who showcased the progress with the Guild’s current research work on the “SingularityNET AI Marketplace.” He emphasized the need for ambassadors to understand how the marketplace works. He also added that the purpose of the research work is to understand the potential gaps and ensure that the sNET Ambassadors use the AI marketplace. According to Clement, the research is in the data-collection phase—so he encourages everyone on the call to contribute to the research. After his presentation, MaxMiles commented on his efforts and progress so far.
Q2 in Perspective by AYO: As Q1 draws to a close, the Strategy Guild reflects on its achievements and looks forward to a promising Q2. Ayo stated that the guild will continue to deliver workshop sessions and conduct research, though there will be only three calls in Q2. This conversation led to a decision-making process. We deliberated on whether to host the calls on the first or last Monday of each month. Clement shared his opinion, but Effiom’s suggestion was adopted. He proposed that the guild hold its monthly meetings on the first Monday of each month, while the remaining weeks are used to track task progress asynchronously. Async Unit by Effiom: Speaking of keeping abreast with the latest updates in the guild, the Async unit will begin to function again. These Async guys are people who will follow up with members and workgroups to keep track of their progress.
New Members Discussion: Speaking of new members, MaxMiles asked how onboarding works in the guild. Ayo explained that the Strategy Guild operates differently from other workgroups. To be considered a member, one must be active in at least five workgroups. In response, MaxMiles mentioned that he has been active in several workgroups, including Strategy.
Budget: In this meeting, we reviewed our Q2 budget. With 4,000 AGIX allocated, we agreed to reduce meeting time and focus on high-priority tasks such as research and workshops. Ayo also encouraged everyone to participate in the consent rounds
AOB: “Effiom raised a concern: “Since we’re reverting to monthly meetings, how do we track our progress? How do we know what people are doing?” He suggested using GitHub to monitor task progress, but Effiom pointed out that optimizing GitHub would be challenging and that there wasn’t any budget allocated for it. After that, Jeffrey introduced himself, and the meeting came to a close.”
Decision Items:
We have decided that going forward, the Strategy Guild will only meet once a month—which is the first Monday of each month. While subsequent meetings will be held last Monday of the last two months of the quarter
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
The Strategy Guild will review MaxMiles’s participation in other workgroups to determine whether he has met the threshold to be recognized as a member of the guild.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Ayo and Effiom to announce the new Async/task force members in the coming TH. [assignee] Ayo, Effiom [due] 7 April 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Budget, Q1 research, SingularityNET AI Marketplace, Async unit, Research, Monthly meetings, Onboarding, GitHub, Threshold, Q2
emotions: insightful, Resourceful, informative, looking-ahead
Tuesday 18th March 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, LordKizzy, Tevo, guillermolucero, Sucre n Spice, CollyPride, LadyTempestt, SubZero, Slate, Alfred Itodele, AshleyDawn, Duke, Effiom, esewilliams, Malik, Évéline Trinité, MaxMilez, UknowZork, osmium
Purpose: Regular weekly GovWG meeting
Narrative:
We looked at the consent form responses, noting that 14 WGs have no objections and have thus passed; and 7 WGs have at least one objection, and these will need to be discussed.
We also noted that we did not establish any kind of quorum for this consent round - so even though some WGs only garnered very few responses (for example, Knowleddge Base only had 4), they still pass.
We started with the objections to AI Sandbox/Think Tank; this took most of the meeting and was still inconclusive by the end.
Key discussion points included:
ADMIN COSTS vs DELIVERABLES / OUTPUTS 2 objectors and 2 abstainers all commented that AI Sandbox/Think Tank is spending too high a proportion of their budget on admin (nearly 4x as much as they spend on outputs). In the discussion, it was suggested that perhaps some budget elements had been mis-described as admin, when actually they are outputs/deliverables. The nature of this WG means that its sessions are not just procedural meetings, but actual learning sessions or debates, so in effect, it delivers a community event each week, so in a sense, its meetings are "outputs".
WHAT ARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TASKS? Tevo said that the project management tasks he does in his own WGs only take him minutes to do, so he queried why AI Sandbox/Think Tank is taking so much longer. He suggested the WG's quarterly report should list the fixed tasks needed to prepare each of its sessions - the WG has learnt, after operating for a few months, what these tasks are.
GITHUB vs DEWORK MANAGEMENT COSTS Is the WG "double-dipping" by costing for both GitHub and Dework management? No. Project management for this WG (as for many other WGs) is done on a GitHub Board - but in order to process payments, the information still needs to be copy-pasted into Dework tasks, because the Treasury system unfortunately doesn't integrate directly with GitHub. But we noted that there may be questions over how long this should take, and that using Dework templates could make it faster.
PAYMENTS STOPPED IN Q1 2025 It was noted as background info that during Q1, Treasury stopped payments to Sandbox/Think Tank for certain project management tasks, because they felt it was not clear enough in the Dework task what was being done; and LordKizzy amended the Dework tasks to give more detail.
VALUE OF TOOL EXHIBITION SESSIONS Tevo queried the value of the WG's tool exhibition sessions - do they give any more information about the tools than a person could gain by simply Googling? Are the selected tools actually useful? Should the sessions cover only sNET tools rather than just any AI tool? What is the impact of the sessions if nobody is actually using the tools under discussion? He acknowledged that perhaps the value is in the discussion itself, but still had questions, which were not fully resolved in this meeting.
PUBLIC GITHUB BOARD Lord Kizzy screenshared the AI Sandbox/Think Tank GitHub board, and realised that as they're using 2 separate repos, one of them is not public. He agreed to make it all public, to improve transparency.
DOCUMENTING PLANNING SESSIONS AND ASYNC WORK There was a suggestion that the WG's planning meetings and async discussions need to be documented, for transparency. But it was noted that many WGs do this kind of work and don't document it publicly, and have not been asked to; so it is important to ensure we are not demanding something of AI Sandbox/Think Tank that is not being asked of other WGs. We noted that in future Quarters, it could be made an absolute requirement for WGs to fully document this type of work, but it currently is not.
FLAT RATES FOR ADMIN COSTS? It was suggested that all WGs should pay the same for admin costs such as facilitation, documentation, etc. The counter-argument was that in line with WG autonomy, WGs should continue to be able to make their own decisions on this, within reason, and that some variation is OK; particularly because the tasks are not exactly the same from WG to WG. There was no final decision on this.
TO RESOLVE OBJECTIONS TO AI SANDBOX/THINK-TANK To resolve his objections, Tevo said that AI Sandbox/Think Tank need to:
update their budget sheet to remove as many things as possible from project management and assign to either of the deliverables (AI Sandbox sessions or AI Think Tank session);
if possible, lower the rewards for Dework task management, because it should use a template which they copy paste, and the work should not be more than 30 mins per week
make their GitHub board fully public so we can see all the tasks
explain in more detail, in the relevant GitHub issues, what the operational calls and async planning consist of, ideally including relevant links.
Discussion Points:
Noting which WGs' Q2 2025 budgets have passed, and which have objections
Working through the objections for AI Sandbox/Think Tank
Decision Items:
We agreed that the following 14 WGs' budget have passed:
AI Ethics Archives Gamers GitHub PBL Governance Knowledge Base LatAm Moderators Onboarding Process Strategy Treasury Treasury Automation Video
[rationale] Because they had no objections
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We noted that the following 7 WGs' budgets have NOT passed, and need to be further discussed:
African AI Sandbox/Think Tank Education Marketing R&D Translation Writers
[rationale] Because they have at least 1 objection
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that next meeting, rather than continuing where we left off in the discussion on AI Sandbox/Think-Tank, we will start by reading through all the objections to all WGs, before beginning to discuss any of them.
[rationale] To ensure that we at least make people aware of what all of the objections are, even if we do not get time to address them all in one meeting. In this meeting, we focused in too quickly on one WG, and that took up all of the time.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We agreed that we will need to adjust the schedule for Governance meetings to allow for several more sessions on discussing the budget objections.
[rationale] because sorting out budget objections properly is more important than getting the budgets agreed quickly.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We noted that we did not establish any kind of quorum for this consent round - so even though some WGs only garnered very few responses (for example, Knowleddge Base only had 4), they still pass.
[rationale] We have previously discussed the idea of a quorum, but never actually implemented one for this round.
[opposing] Possibly this is something to consider for next Quarter
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Everyone - particularly WGs with objections - will add comments in the "Responses" Googlesheet to address the objection(s), in time for the next meeting (Thurs 20th March). [assignee] all [due] 20 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Peter will give a brief update at today's Town Hall to outline where the budget consent process is at - and then we will endeavour NOT to talk about budget issues beyond that, to avoid exhausting people on the topic ("budget discussion burnout") [assignee] PeterE [due] 18 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, Q1 2025 quarterly report, AI Sandbox/Think Tank, objections, admin costs, admin costs vs outputs, Town Hall, budget discussion burnout, GitHub project board, cost standardisation, Quorum, Dework, Dework template
emotions: well-attended, inconclusive, no decisions, in-depth, slow
GitHub PBL WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: tevo [facilitator], Tevo, PeterE [documenter], Ashley, Jeffrey, Kareem, peter, salometee, UknowZork
Purpose: Aggregating Ambassador Program assets and relevant information under GitBook
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Agenda item 1 - Workgroup Management - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
What are criteriums for a higher reward rate for educational content creation?
All previous lessons were rewarded at $20/hour rate
Reviewing is now rewarded trough Feedback Form rewarding
The Treasury Manager Roles Configuration can be used to automate complex rewarding
Decision Items:
We implement five stages of increased rewards
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We segment lessons into Quarterly Cohorts and use it to determine the Content Creator's Reward rate
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Stage-up can only happen twice per cohort
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Drafting a lesson in a new lesson grants a stage-up
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Updating existing lessons based on feedback grants another stage-up.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Starting from Q2, rewards will be fixed at 66 AGIX per hour
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Each Stage provides a 10% increased rewards
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Sage Bonuses Stack up to a maximum 50% increased rewards (10+10+10+10+10)
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Lessons no longer have a responsible person and everyone is free to choose which lessons to update
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We go Main Chain with Course when the majority of lessons are completed
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Tevo to create a meeting summary. [status] done
[action] Peter will review the meeting summary. [status] done
[action] Tevo to update Treasury Manager Configurations to apply correct Content Creators stages [status] done
Agenda item 2 - Reviewing Andamio Lessons - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Reviewed Module 105 - Wallet Management
Started Reviewing Module 201 - GitHub Administration
We quickly ran into multiple Problems and issues, both technical and content wise so we didn't get past the first lesson
Decision Items:
We First Start teaching about Adding people and setting up an environment where a Project Board can be used (Module 201) and then we move to the existing prepared Project Board for learning Task Management (Module 202)
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Lesson 201.1 - Step 1 should provide link to user own Organisation page [status] todo
[action] Lesson 201.1 - Provide this link instead of the org general link and describe in the guide to invite people to org is in here. Right now its unclear if that is required step. It should be step 0 or actual step 1 [status] todo
[action] Add Disclaimer to lesson 105.2 that the Nami Wallet is now a Lace wallet, The structure remains same, but links are leading to Lace Wallet [status] todo
[action] Create a new lesson and move it to be the first lesson about creating an Organisation in GitHub. Include information that the Creation of an Organisation may not work. Try again the next hour [status] todo
Agenda item 3 - Potential Bugs on Andamio - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Public Assignments are not displayed in the Public version and the button CTA: Learn More, does nothing.
every time we try to publish a GitHub PBL WG lesson, it moves us to andamio page https://app.andamio.io/course/andamio101. And Content is not published.
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Rewards, Stages, Rules, Lessons, Module, Andamio, Miro Board, Quarter
Wednesday 19th March 2025
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], Clement Umoh, esewilliams, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, Malik, osmium, SubZero, Uknowzork, Zalfred, Slate, Évéline Trinité, maxmilez
Purpose: Introductions - Budget Concerns - Certification Program - Ai for Beginners - Wiki Website Designs
Working Docs:
In this meeting we discussed:
Introductions
Budget Concerns
Certification Program
Ai for Beginners
Wiki Website Designs
Discussion Points:
The Meeting started with a warm welcome , Uknowzork stepped up to present himset showcasing his interest in content creation and writing.
Everybody welcomed him and looking forward to his contributions
Then the topic shifted towards the budget concerns which gorga presented, Education Guild Received one concern from Tevo which is listed in the consent doc.
Slate replied to those concerns that the materials are mostly relevant to the certification program whose creation in order to test stuff was necessary along with a mention of a video which was listed in the concerns is not from education guild
Most of the things everybody agreed, Zalfred also added to the discussion mentioning that Video WG has been involved with the education guild as well for their content creation
After that the topic shifted towards the certification program on which suggestions were taken in regards to hosting platforms and success criteria and marketing
Update from Ai for Beginners was given by ESE highlighting that the talks with Andrew Ben have ended and that there is an agreement on the posting for video at a 30 USD rate
Slate mentioned that the uploads could be made like two videos at a time
Slate presented the three backgrounds are being integrated to the website along with the ceritification dashboards which will be presnted by the next call
Decision Items:
Replies to concerns
[rationale] Most agreed
[opposing] Nil
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Work upon the Background integration [assignee] FranklynStein [due] 26 March 2025 [status] done
[action] Replies to concerns doc [assignee] Slate [due] 26 March 2025 [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: CCCP, Budget Concerns,, Project Updates, Uploads, AI for beginners, wiki website
Research and Development Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, PeterE, guillermolucero, CollyPride, alfred itodole, jeffrey ndarake, Zainab, Slate, eveline, AJ
Purpose: R&D Updates and Discussions
Working Docs:
Agenda Items:
Welcoming new Members and Introduction
Review of last meeting summary Action Items
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard, W3CD-Web3-Contributors-Dashboard, CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database, Social-Media-Dashboard, Reputation-System-using-SoulBound-Tokens-SBTs
MetaCoders Lab Discussion
AOB Open discussions
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
Discussion on MetaCoderLab Collaboration: Guillermo noted the group on his inclusion to A discussion group on MeTTa most. he also highlighted the Hack India initiative
New proposal applications: Guillermo went over the proposal submissions. There were still two submissions (AI agent and a meeting scheduling system) after the extension but lordkizzy noted that he was working on a proposal and he would make a submission before the deadline.
R&D Guild Budget concern: We went through the budget concerns, guild members gave their response to this, while Guillermo documented the feedback. Advanceameyaw also addressed the status of the Collaboration SQL database, confirming the launch of a beta version and ongoing improvements.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard: Guillermo emphasizing the inclusion of anonymity in their blueprint and the necessity for a structured roadmap for the project.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database: Advanceameyaw outlined the testing process for community members and the need to finalize user-profiles and Discord logins
Action Items:
[action] Lordkizzy to follow up on communication with the soft launch of the deployment of Legacy [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Advanceameyaw to write a short paragraph explaining the status of the Collaboration SQL database to Guillermo on Discord. [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo to prepare a written response regarding the concerns raised in the quarterly report. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Nunet, CSDB, MeTTa Coder Lab, Team Collaboration , legacy project
emotions: Collaborative, informative, Understanding.
Thursday 20th March 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, Tevo, Jeffrey Ndarake, Eric Davies, CollyPride, LadyTempestt, Kateri, Effiom, AshleyDawn, UknowZork, LordKizzy, Sucre n Spice, advanceameyaw
Purpose: Regular weekly Open Gov call
Narrative:
We read through all the objections in the spreadsheet here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s6Uy3ZsPwAZUM094ENN3kqXugU5xUaZpxYdqfaDy7rk/edit?usp=sharing to ensure that they have at least all been publicly heard.
We noted that the only objection for Translation WG (i.e. to add links in the Quarterly Report to the translated articles) has been addressed and the links have been added, so we confirmed that Translation WG's budget has now been approved. As an aside, we noted that some of the translated articles are not tagged, so it would be difficult for people to find them - but this task is supposed to be done by Iain Wentworth.
We discussed some of the issues raised in the objections to the 6 WGs that have not yet been approved, but did not reach a resolution on any of them.
We realised that the current schedule, which requires the 2nd-round consent forms to go out this Sunday, 23rd March, is not possible, so we amended it to push all the dates back by 1 week (see "Decisions" below).
We also decided on some changes to the 2nd-round consent process to ensure fairness, and avoid an endless cycle of new objections (see "Decisions" below). We recognised that it is unlikely that even another 2 meetings will completely resolve all the objections; so as GovWG our role is to ensure everyone knows what the objections are, and has easy access to the WGs' comments on them - people can then use the 2nd round consent process to say whether they feel the objection(s) against each as-yet-unapproved WG are an issue, or not. In this, we agreed that it would be valid for someone who did not object to a WG in round 1 to rethink based on the objections raised by other people, and to say in Round 2 "Actually, I agree that such-and-such is a problem", but not for them to add new objections of their own at this stage.
Discussion Points:
Reading out all objections in the Q2 process
Approving Translation WG
Amending the timeline for the consent process
Changes to the 2nd-round consent process to ensure fairness, and avoid an endless cycle of new objections
Decision Items:
We agreed that Translation WG's budget is now approved
[rationale] because the objection (i.e. that links to the translated articles need to be added) has been done.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We confirmed that the 6 WGs which have not yet been approved are therefore:
African AI Sandbox/Think Tank Education Marketing R&D Writers
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed to amend the schedule for this consent process to a week later, so:
Tues 25th and Thurs 27th March: Gov WG meetings will be additional budget approval sessions
Sun 30th March: deadline for WGs with outstanding objections to submit amended budgets/reports
Mon 31st March: Round 2 consent forms are shared
Weds 2nd April: deadline for Core Contributors to send in their consent forms
Thurs 3rd April - final meeting. If objections cannot be resolved, then WGs with 80% consent will be approved.
[rationale] because there clearly will not be time to proceed on the previously-agreed timeline
We decided that WGs with objections should ideally create a doc where they list the objections and give their responses
[rationale] Because this will be easier to read and to reference than having the points as comments in the "Responses" spreadsheet.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We decided that the second-round consent process should only allow people to comment on objections that have already been raised, rather than raising completely new ones.
[rationale] We won't have time to address brand-new objections; it could end up as a never-ending cycle; and it is unfair to WGs to continue to allow new objections to be raised that were not mentioned earlier.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed that it would be valid for someone who did not object to a WG in round 1 to rethink based on the objections raised by other people, and to say in Round 2 "Actually, I agree that such-and-such is a problem".
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We decided that the consent form for Round 2 needs to be amended to reflect the above. It should list the existing objections to each WG and ask people to agree or disagree; and it should all be in 1 form, rather than requiring people to complete separate forms for each WG.
[rationale] Because the form as it currently is would allow people to introduce new objections, which we have aagreed would be undesireable.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: consent process, Translation WG, objections, consent process timeline, timeline, consent form
emotions: slightly prickly, inconclusive, circular, slow
AI Sandbox/Think-tank
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], Santos [documenter], Bube amadi, Duke, advanceameyaw, PeterE, martinsoki, AJ, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, osmium, CallyFromAuron, Jeffrey Ndarake, UKnowZork, Alfred Itodele
Purpose: Project Showcase; introducing the new NuNet appliance, presentation of the Project Showcase template, addressing Q2 2025 budget concerns
In this meeting we discussed:
Meeting Coordination and introduction: Lordkizzy welcomed attendees, outlined the agenda, and emphasized the importance of community feedback in the Nunet appliance's development.
Project Showcase from NuNet: Following previous complaints regarding setting up the NuNet appliance, Vasu Madaan assured participants that most issues had been resolved in the upgraded appliance, which Bube Amadi would present in a concise format. Bube Amadi provided detailed updates on the appliance, highlighting significant improvements such as reduced installation time and enhanced user experience. The transition from multipass to VirtualBox was explained, with Bube demonstrating how to download and install VirtualBox, including guidance for different machine architectures. She showcased the appliance running in VirtualBox and discussed the simplified boot process, system resource adjustments, and the management of the DMS, encouraging participants to test the system and provide feedback.The presentation also covered the process for generating decentralized identities (DIDs) through wormhole code submission, with Bube explaining the approval process and the importance of keeping the terminal open during this time. She noted that users would receive notifications for updates without needing to uninstall previous versions, although those who used multipass would need to reinstall. Lordkizzy sought clarification on containerization and the public launch timeline, with Bube confirming that the appliance release had been delayed until the following day.
AI Sandbox Release Update: Bube Amadi confirmed that the appliance will be available for download tomorrow, addressing previous issues related to RAM allocation and multi-pass functionality. Lordkizzy shared the form link for those who have not filled it out and noted that the installation process using VirtualBox should now be smoother. She also mentioned that connectivity issues experienced by Goga have been resolved.
The structure and purpose of the Project Showcase template: Lordkizzy briefed the attendees on the project showcase, which includes sections for project introduction, architecture, use cases, and challenges. This initiative is designed to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing within the community.
Budget Objections and Clarifications: In response to objections about the Q2 2025 budget, Lordkizzy clarified that the task allocations are for different purposes and not repetitive. He detailed the project management tasks, which include coordination, feedback review, and documentation, asserting that these efforts justify the budget allocations.
Action Items:
[action] Bube Amadi will share the link to download the new appliance with the team. [assignee] Bube amadi [due] 27 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy will share the form in the chat for those who have not filled it out. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 27 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Martin will document next week's session. [assignee] martinsoki [due] 27 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: showcase template, virtual box, system configuration, resourse management, Ensemble functionality, Testnet, wormhole code, Appliance, installation, Nunet, Q2 2025 budget
emotions: Interactive, Productive, insightful, informative
Onboarding Workgroup
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: CollyPride [facilitator], photogee, CallyFromAuron [documenter], CollyPride, photogee, LordKizzy, Eric Davies, Sucre n Spice, Love, CallyFromAuron, AshleyDawn, Evelyn, Jeffrey, martinsoki, Santos, Maxmilez, Kateri
Purpose: Regular biweekly meeting of Onboarding WG
In this meeting we discussed:
Onboarding to Decentralization Analysis Update
Kizzy mentioned that they (Clement, Cjfrankie, and Vani) had a meeting and are currently working on the onboarding to decentralization analysis. Once completed, it will be sent to CJ to create the final doc.
Q2 2025 Budget
Due to token price drop to around $0.20, the focus group have had to rethink the Q2 budget. Key changes:
Miro, GitHub, and Dework management will be less, since there is less work being down and therefpre fewer payments to process.
Monthly meetings rather than forttnightly.
No budget foir document creation/contributing, delivering Town Hall upodates, or writing a Q2 quarterly report - the focus group will fold these tasks into their work.
Slight reduction for the Onboarders team
We will maintain having the skillshare session, however, as it is not only useful, but also bringsw the community together so can be a morale-boost.
Obviously this was not the budget we submitted for Q2, but we agreed that the redyuctions are necessary - so unless token price rises again, changes will take effect as of April.
Focus of meetings
Vani noted that the main focus of our work will thus become the work of the Onboarders, so this will be the focus of meetings next Quarter; tthis could be a little boring for other members unless we make a point of making space in meetings for people to comment and discuss what the Onboarders are doing.
The Onboarders will also need to organise async in Discord.
Decision Items:
We agreed to implement our reduced / fitted budget for Q2
[opposing] unless token price rises again to the $0.30 at which we calculated the budget that we originally submitted.
Action Items:
[action] Kizzy to complete the “Onboarding to Decentralization analysis” before the next meeting. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 31 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kizzy to rework the onboarding facilitation and documentation roster to tsake account of the shift to monthly meetings [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 31 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani will provide an update on the fitted budget in the next meeting on April 3rd, to confirm details according to what token price is like by then. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 3 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Colleen will DM Duke to confirm he can facilitate the first meeting of Q2, on April 3rd. [assignee] CollyPride [due] 31 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Documentation Roster, low token price, Budget fitting, Q2 2025 budget
emotions: Collaborative, forward-thinking, Concern, Productive, Openness
Friday 21st March 2025
Writers Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: kenichi [facilitator], CJFrankie [documenter], kenichi, Mikasa, CJFrankie, Gorga Siagian, devon, Evelyn, inesgav, LadyTempestt, AJ
Purpose: The weekly meeting of the writers workgroup
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Kick-off: The writers' workgroup weekly meeting commenced at 3:10 p.m. Kenichi reviewed the action items from the previous meeting. He announced that the Twitter premium plan had been activated and that the monthly Town Hall updates from January would be the first publication on X. Furthermore, he stated that the Web3 publishing platforms require additional attention and, to that end, requested that Cj Frankie and Gorga submit their first drafts.
DRAFTS: As agreed in the previous meeting, article suggestions will now be submitted via spreadsheet. In this meeting, Kenichi demonstrated the new draft submission form, which streamlines the process. Writers can now suggest articles, include submission and preferred publication dates, and provide other relevant information. The form's integration with a Google Sheet simplifies tracking for the workgroup. Ines also recommended considering tools like Trello to further enhance workflow. Both Scribblers and Scribes will have access to the submission form. Once a draft is approved, the Scribes will submit it to the community page. Kenichi will coordinate with Peter to pin the form link to the WWG Discord channel for easy access.
Role document: Ines inquired about the new role document and its associated thresholds. Kenichi clarified that the document will be accessible this Quarter, and there will be no penalties for not meeting any outlined expectations. The document's purpose is to track Scribblers' progress over time, enabling the workgroup to make informed decisions, such as whether or not to onboard new members.
Ambassador Program website: In this meeting, Ines proposed the idea of creating a platform or WordPress for the workgroup, where all information about what we do can be easily accessed. Kenichi then revealed that he is collaborating with the R&D guild to develop an Ambassador Program website, which will house comprehensive information about all workgroups, each of which will have a dedicated page with updated access.
Action Items:
[action] Kenichi to chase Peter to pin the draft submission form in the WWG Discord channel. [assignee] kenichi [due] 28 February 2025 [status] todo
Learning Points:
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Ambassador Program website, R&D guild, Twitter/X Premium, article submission form, roles
emotions: Brief
Marketing Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], LordKizzy, kareem, kenichi, Gorga Siagian, Eric Davies, Kateri, advanceameyaw, UknowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, SubZero, Mikasa, hogantuso
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
The meeting opened with Ayo stressing the importance of punctuality and accountability. He voiced concerns about members' commitment levels, particularly those arriving late, and urged everyone to align their actions with their stated commitments.
Ayo reviewed the agenda and previous meeting notes, requesting clarification on Kevin's MindPlex Guild proposal. Gorga explained the graphics team’s non-hierarchical structure, while Ayo emphasized the need for all members to review the governance document before the next meeting, setting a 70% review benchmark for effective decision-making. He also addressed the status of action items, noting that only three out of seven had been completed, and urged members to submit their tasks for March.
Discussion on Q1 Report and Guild Q2 Budget: LordKizzy presented the Q1 report, highlighting successful initiatives, increased participation, and the adoption of GitHub for project management. He also provided updates on community proposals and the upcoming podcast initiative. However, Tevo objected to the budget proposal, citing insufficient reporting from the previous quarter and concerns about tax duplication. LordKizzy addresses the consents made. He pointed out that accusations of dishonesty towards the guild are unfounded and disrespectful, citing a meeting summary by Eric Davies that supports their position on fund allocation. LordKizzy also noted that a proposal for increased funding for podcast was rejected.
Budget Review and Adjustments Discussion: LordKizzy emphasized the importance of documenting the Marketing Guild Budgets and Reports for future consultations. Ayo sought input on the budget, encouraging members to voice any concerns about misrepresentation or omissions. He highlighted a significant difference in the current budget compared to the previous quarter, primarily due to fluctuations in token prices.
Updates on Initiatives: LordKizzy noted that there was no budget allocation for the Zealy initiative in the Writers' WG for the upcoming quarter and suggested scheduling a call to address this issue. Eric provided an update on the podcast initiative, indicating that it was initially set to start on Sunday but will now commence next week due to technical issues.
Podcast Script and Payment Discussion: Gorga asked about payment for his podcast script, and LordKizzy clarified that payment would only be processed after the first episode is published.
Discussion on the Podcast update: Mikasa shared updates on the podcast's first episode, detailing delays caused by an electrical surge that damaged her equipment. She confirmed that the necessary tools and scripts are ready, and invites will be sent to Peter for scheduling.
A.O.B: Eric Davis introduced a new community initiative focused on user engagement. Ayo encouraged him to proceed and advised that if it’s a committee initiative, he should keep the proposal confidential and submit it properly. He suggested reaching out to LordKizzy for the submission form, noting that the idea sounded promising.
Action Items:
[action] All members to read the governance documents and provide comments before the next meeting. [assignee] members [due] 28 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kareem to have a discussion with Gorga regarding the proposed structure for the graphics team. [assignee] kareem [due] 28 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Photogee to share the Marketing Guild Google Drive to LordKizzy [assignee] photogee [due] 28 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to reach out to Eric Davies regarding updates on the Zealy initiative. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 28 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Jeffrey to put a comment in the Marketing Guild channel on Discord to help us identify him. [assignee] Jeffrey [due] 28 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Mikasa to send invites to Peter for the podcast recording and confirm his availability. [assignee] Mikasa [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to reach out to kenichi regarding the Zealy initiative allocation for Writers WG [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q1 Report, Q2 2025 budget, Initiatives, Community podcast update
emotions: informative, Satisfaction , insightful
Video Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: osmium [facilitator], Malik [documenter], LordKizzy, Slate, AndrewBen, SubZero, hogantuso, Zalfred, Malik, osmium, devon, killy
Purpose: Review budget approvals, discuss Zealy sprint, task distributions, and content strategy improvements.
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
Budget Approval & Feedback: The budget was approved, but some concerns were raised regarding video content relevance. Discussions on feedback from Peter, who questioned the impact and relevance of certain videos while also giving a suggestion to adjust the Town Hall summary editing task to be a $10 task. Need to clarify the distinction between Video Workgroup and Education Guild content.
Zealy Sprint & Role Assignments: Need for volunteers to support Zealy sprint operations, as current budget constraints limit allocations. Discussion on whether Video Workgroup members should take up Zealy tasks without direct compensation. Proposal to schedule a meeting with Marketing Guild and Writers Workgroup to finalize responsibilities.
Content Strategy & Engagement Issues: Concerns that video content lacks a clear target audience. Need for better social media engagement and outreach strategies. Acknowledgment that high-quality content alone is not enough without proper visibility and engagement.
Task Management & Submissions Update: Some video tasks from the last quarter were still pending submissions. AI in Science & Tokenization of Real World Assets videos had been submitted but needed review. Discussion on payout schedules for completed tasks.
Task Distribution via Random Selection: Monthly roles were assigned through a spinning wheel selection. Malik and Killy agreed to swap documentation and summary roles.
Decision Items:
Finalize Zealy Sprint Collaboration Plan
[rationale] Schedule a call with the Marketing Guild and Writers Workgroup to define roles. Determine whether Video Workgroup members will handle Zealy tasks without compensation.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Enhance Social Media & Engagement Strategy
[rationale] Focus on increasing visibility and outreach to ensure video content reaches the right audience.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Town Hall Editing Task Payouts
[rationale] Address concerns about editing time vs. payment rates of Town Hall and it’s Summary Editing
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Finalize Zealy Sprint Collaboration [status] todo
[action] Review Pending Video Submissions [assignee] devon, LordKizzy [status] todo
[action] Facilitator [assignee] hogantuso [status] todo
[action] Task Manager [assignee] Zalfred [status] todo
[action] Social Media Manager [assignee] AndrewBen [status] todo
[action] Town Hall Video Editor [assignee] Slate [status] todo
[action] Town Hall Summary Editing [assignee] Killy [status] todo
[action] Review Team [assignee] LordKizzy, devon [status] todo
[action] Meeting Documenter [assignee] Malik [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Monthly Roles Distribution, Budget Review, Zealy sprints , Content Strategy Improvements
emotions: Collaborative, Optimism , Satisfaction , forward-thinking, Understanding.
Last updated