Week 13
Mon 24th Mar - Sun 30th Mar 2025
Last updated
Mon 24th Mar - Sun 30th Mar 2025
Last updated
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, LordKizzy, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinite, UknowZork
Purpose: regular weekly GovWG meeting
Working Docs:
RESOLVING OBJECTIONS? Most of the objections are Tevo's; so because he was unable to be at this meeting, we were unable to try to resolve them.
We looked at the one other objection (by Vani, objecting to Writers' WG on the grounds of over-centralisation). Mikasa gave a defence saying that they have already planned to address the problem - but as this is exactly what was said last time the issue arose, Vani preferred not to resolve the objection, but to let it go to the consent process. So Writers' WG will address this in their "response" doc.
There were no other objections by anyone other than Tevo.
CAN WE RULE ANY OBJECTIONS INVALID? We discussed whether we, as Governance WG, can rule any of the objections as "invalid", as was done in previous rounds. For example, the objection to African Guild that they pay $25 per meeting for facilitation when the objector believes there should be a standard fee of $20 across the Program - we noted that there is no longer any agreed, enforcable "standard fee", and that trying to impose one retroactively could infringe on the idea of workgroup autonomy, so this could therefore be considered an invalid objection. However, since Tevo isn't able to be here to discuss it, perhaps we should not rule out any objections as "invalid", but should let all the objections go to the 2nd consent round - if individuals feel an objection is not valid, they will select "objection has been addressed or is not an issue". This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting to confirm that we do not plan to rule any onbjection "invalid" at this stage.
ARE OBJECTIONS INVALID IF THEY WERE NOT SUBMITTED IN THE "WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION" FIELD? We noted that some of the objections in the responses sheet were actually submitted in the "What would need to change?" field, so it's not 100% clear that they are objections as such. (Example - the objection mentioned above, about African Guild paying $25 for documentation.) However, it is pretty clear from context that they are intended as objections.
SEPARATE THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS OUT? The draft 2nd-round consent form created by Vani separates each individual objection (even if it's part of a set of several points that were made by the same person), and asks people to agree / disagree with each one separately.
LordKizzy suggested that instead, we should give all the objections to a particular WG together, and ask people "In the light of the above, do you consent or object to this WG's budget?" This might make the consenting process easier; but it might also mean that if someone only agrees with one of the objections, we won't know which one. This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting.
WHAT DOES "80/20" MEAN IN PRACTICE? We noted that it's not completely clear what the 80/20% rule means in this context. First - do abstentions count towards the total "number of people who took part"? Is it "80%/20% including abstentions" or not? Second - to pass, does a WG need at least 80% of respondents saying "this has been resolved, or is not an issue", or fewer than 20% saying "this is still a problem"? This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting.
WHAT HAPPENS IF A WG'S BUDGET DOESN'T PASS? We realised that we have not definitely confirmed what the approach is this round. Will that be it - no budget? Or will there be any further attempts to resolve the situation? This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting
Running through the outstanding objections to see if there were any we could resolve
Can we, in a Governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid?
Should the 2nd round consent form list each objection separately, or should we consolidate them?
What does the 80/20% rule mean in practice in this context?
We agreed that in Thursday's meeting, we need further discussion of the following:
Can we, in a Governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid?
Should the 2nd round consent form list each objection separately, or should we consolidate them?
What does the 80/20% rule mean in practice in this context?
[rationale] These issues were raised in today's meeting, but we didn't have time to reac firm conclusions.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
[action] Everyone to think about the 3 issues that will be carried over to Thursday's meeting [assignee] all [due] 27 March 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: consent process, Writers' WG, centralisation, 80% / 20% rule, invalid objections, abstentions
emotions: thoughtful, inconclusive, knotty problems
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], Kateri, CallyFromAuron [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, LordKizzy, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinite, UknowZork, Kateri, PeterE, Clement Umoh, advanceameyaw, Alfred, martinsoki, Mikasa, Sucre n Spice, Jeffrey
Purpose: Weekly Open Governance meeting
Working Docs:
Peter reviewed the objections that were discussed in the last meeting, noting that some may need further discussion before moving to the consent process.
Guillermo talked about the importance of not delaying decisions because the objector is not present. Vani noted that we have already started moving with or without Tevo being present.
Peter highlighted the questions asked in the last meeting:
Whether to consolidate objections or keep them separate in the consent form?
Can we, in a governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid ?
Lordkizzy presented that André has withdrawn his objection to AI Sandbox/Thnk Tank. We agreed to ask André to add a note in the Responses spreadsheet tp say this, and he did so during the meeting.
Vani asked what we plan to do if a workgroup doesn’t get the required 80% consent in the 2nd round. We agreed that the workgroup should be able to continue to try to reach a resolution, rather than simply having no budget for Q2. Lord kizzy noted that we should track the objections to know which has been addressed and which has not.
Guillermo spoke that we shouldn’t consolidate all the objections on a WG in the form, as it will make it difficult to be clear what someone is actually objecting to Lord kizzy suggested that we should add a question in the form that asks "Overall, do you consent to this WG's budget?" and then ask which, if any, of the objections from round 1 are still a concern. This would allow people to indicate if certain objections had not been satisfactorily addressed, even if on balance they consent to the WG's budget overall.
There was a brief discussion on workgroup autonomy, in relation to the objection to African Guild's charging $25 for facilitation when the objector felt that $20 was standard. Many felt that such objections interfered with workgroup autonomy; and it was noted that there is not actually any agreed "standard" price. Nevertheless, we agreed not to ruke the objection as invalid, but to let it go to the 2nd-round consent process.
Clement raised concerns about the objection to African Guild in relation to reward distribution; he questioned whether it is true that rewards were being allocated solely based on meeting attendance rather than task performance and noted that token price fluctuations were limiting workgroup innovation.
Peter expressed caution about spending reserves when token prices are low, the idea of using reserves to support workgroup functions during downturns was tabled for another discussion.
We discussed exactly what the "80-20% rule" means, and how we calculate whether a WG has passed the threshold - do they need 80% consent or above 80%? or is it better to look at the threshold as "no more than 20% objection"? And 80%/20% of what? Is it all those who participated, or are abstainers not counted? See "Decisions" below.
Whether to list each objection separately in the consent form, or consolidate them.
How to prevent new objections from being raised in the 2nd consent round
What the 80%/20% rule means in practice - do WGs need more than 80% consent, or is it no more than 20% objections? The challenge of calculating percentages when some members abstain.
We will ask objectors to review the shared documentation (WGs will each write a document addressing the objections they have received) before the 2nd consent round opens, and formally withdraw objections if they feel the issues have been resolved.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
The 2nd round consent form will ask people to consent, object or abstain to a Workgroup budget as a whole, before asking for their views on the individual objections from Round 1.
[rationale] Will be clearer, and will allow people to consent overall, even if they feel that some of the objections are still a concern.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We will keep the different objections separate, and ask people which ones, if any, they think are a problem.
[rationale] This will enable us to identify which objections need to be discussed further (in general terms, rather than in relation to whether or not a WG gets its budget) once the consent process is over.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We are not going to rule any objections invalid
[rationale] This meeting is perhaps not well-attended enough to give a real consensus that an objection should be overruled. It would be better to let them all go through the 2nd consent round and see which ones Core Contributors agree are an issue.
The 80-20% rule means a Workgroup will pass unless more than 20% of those taking part object. As always, the “number taking part” excludes abstainers
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Vani will modify the Round 2 consent form to include “consent” “object” and “abstain” on the budget as a whole, plus a question on which, if any, outstanding objections the person thinks are still a problem. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 1 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: consent process, Reserves, workgroup autonomy, invalid objections, African guild, consent form design, 80%/20% rule, abstentions
emotions: thoughtful, satisfying, decisive