Week 18

Mon 28th Apr - Sun 4th May 2025

Thursday 1st May 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], LordKizzy, CallyFromAuron, PeterE, Tevo, Effiom, UKnowZork, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Duke, hogantuso, Kateri

  • Purpose: Regular weekly Open Governance meeting

Narrative:

Are "high-cost individuals" are earning too much? First, we noted that we could call them something less pejorative, such as "high-contributing individuals", since those who earn the most are generally those who contribute the most. We also noted that the reason that many of them contribute more seems to be that they feel some sense of accountability and an obligation to deliver something.

Key points raised:

  • Are some "high earners" doing too many roles within workgroups, rather than tasks, with insufficient clarity on what work their role covers, or the time they are spending? Or roles that others are restricted from doing? If so, is this an abuse of the system?

  • For some tasks, only a few people have the skills to do them, so others can't take those tasks on.

  • Are "high contributing individuals" actually preventing anyone from taking tasks? Or if they stepped down, would we find that nobody else would step up? We noted that the high contributors often do try to share the work, but to no avail, as others are unwilling to take tasks - do we need to explore why that is?

  • On the above, how can we hear from "lower earners" in the Program to find out whether they do feel blocked from taking on tasks? We might be making assumptions about how they experience things.

  • If we implement a cap, it might not necessarily be on the total an individual can earn, but on how much an individual can earn from a particular workgroup, or how much a workgroup, or the program as a whole, can spend on a particular type of task.

  • Should a cap on earnings only come into play when the AGIX exchange rate falls below a certain level?

  • Would a cap on earnings create a cultiure of volunteerism, and an atmosphere where people don't feel able to expect to be paid something for the work they do? Would it be more ethical to just say "if you do the work, you should be paid for it"?

  • Would an earnings cap encourage people to be more selective on the tasks they do - e.g. NOT do a task if it is taking too much time, or be more innovative with using tools and automations?

  • Are there tasks being done just for the sake of getting paid, that do not really need to be done?

We didn't agree on implementing an earnings cap now - but we did agree it should be discussed further, and in the light of considering what kinds of tasks we reward, and whether a contribution is of value to the Ambassador Program or not. People shouldn't be rewarded simply for doing things, but for doing things that are deemed to be of value - and we noted that the community as a whole gets to determine what types of activities it considers to be of value and worth rewarding; so this is a conversation we need to have.

We discussed what we mean by "contribution" and "participation", and the difference between them. For example, we currently log "participation" by recording who was present in a meeting - but sitting passively in meetings is arguably not a meaningful "contribution". Can we reward more imaginatively? - for example, rewards for those who (whether verbally or in Chat) say something that makes others think, or those who contribute an opinion. And do we need a category for "attendance" rather than calling it either "contribution" OR "participation"? We also wondered about ways of recording micro-contributions that are too small to track but which can add up to a lot; contributions that are not about specific, finite tasks, but are more general; and particularly, voluntary contributions. We drew no firm conclusions on this.

We noted that some "higher earners" appear to be doing more hours for their rewards than others - but we realised this is partly due to how tasks are recorded on Dework. It emerged that not everyone logs "task points" (the equivalent of "hours spent") on Dework - sometimes because they don't know how long the person took and it would be too vague of an estimate to be of any value as data, and sometimes because they question whether "amount of time spent" is a valid measure. Some in the meeting felt that time-based tracking is meaningful, since it is a data-point that we can at least measure; others argued that there's too much potential for it to be misleading. For example,

  • if someone is new, they take longer to do a task, but that doesn't make their contribution worth more;

  • some people tend to do tasks that are more time-consuming, but that doesn't mean their contribution to the ecosystem is more valuable than that of people who tend to focus on quick tasks;

  • if someone is by nature a slow/fast worker, should we pay them more/less?;

  • neurodivergent people might do tasks quicker than average due to hyperfocus, or slower than average due to executive function issues, and it can feel exposing to be asked to assess your work as if you were working in a neurotypical way when you're not.

Overall it might not be helpful to scrutinise time, and it isn't always a very valid measure of how much someone is contributing. Task-based rather than time-based measurement might be better.

We also looked at the taxonomy that is used to categorise the type of task in the Treasury system. Different workgroups use different names for tasks that are actually similar, which can skew any assessment of what we are paying the most for and spending the most time on. We agreed that this taxonomy might need some looking at, but it's a big task, and we didn't determine who will have the capacity to do it.

Discussion Points:

  • "High-cost individuals" - do we need to decentralise further on fund distribution? If so, should we do so by putting a cap on what an individual can earn?

  • "Hourly rates", or the ratio of work to earnings - are some people doing more work for their money than others? How are we recording the time that people put in?

  • The pros and cons of time-based tracking of work

  • What do we mean by "contribution" and "participation", and is there a meaningful difference? What kinds of things does this community value as a "contribution", and what data can we capture about it?

  • How do we classify tasks? What kind of work are we spending the most budget on?

Decision Items:

  • We agreed that the issue of an earnings cap needs further discussion, and for now, we won't implement one

    • [rationale] Because we didn't finish the discussion, and we need more data on what kinds of tasks we are spending the most money on.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that we need to hear from the lower earners in the program, to find out whether they are facing any obstacles to taking on more tasks, and whether they want to do so.

    • [rationale] Because we realised we don;t have much concrete information on how they feel.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that we probably need to refine the taxonomy that is used to classify tasks in the Treasury system

    • [rationale] to make it clearer when different task labels are actually referring to the same task; and to enable us to get a clearer idea of what kinds of work we are spending money on.

    • [opposing] We didn't determine who will do this, or when.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed that it might be useful to encourage workgroups and individuals to use Dework to track the voluntary, unpaid work they're doing, even if it's just an estimate of the time spent on several micrro-tasks over a week.

    • [rationale] So that these contributions are at least recorded and made visible.

    • [opposing] Perhaps, if this kind of work is not part of a project budget or workgroup budget, maybe it shouldn't be recorded. And if someone doesn't want to record their voluntary time, that is fine.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Tevo will calculate some totals that we are spending across the Program for some of the different task categories, as a starting point (although we recognise that maybe they won't be very accurate due to discrepancies in the task-naming taxonomy) [assignee] Tevo [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Peter and/or Vani will draft a Googleform to collect info from "lower-earning" people in the Program to find out why they don't do more paid tasks. Is it:

  • because they don't want to,

  • or they don't have time,

  • or don't have skills,

  • or do they feel they are being prevented by the "high earners"? [assignee] PeterE, CallyFromAuron [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: time-based recognition, rewards, particpation, contribution, high earners, high contributors, task types, role-based or task-based, neurodivergence, hyperfocus, ADHD, volunteer work, Dework

  • emotions: Discursive, No decisions made, wide-ranging, inconclusive, thoughtful, data-driven

Onboarding Workgroup

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Meeting Kickoff: Love welcomed everyone and shared the GitHub board to go over tasks and action items for the next meeting.

  • Onboarders Team Updates: Love shared her updates on her recent onboarding experience and so invited the Onboarders team to share updates on their recent onboarding experiences. Vani and Lordkizzy both noted a decline in new member joining, prompting the group to shift focus toward mentoring and supporting current members. CJfrankie shared his progress promoting the ambasssador program at the Crypto Evangelist Telegram group and mentioned an upcoming call to discuss the SingularityNET Ambassador Program. Gorga shared a positive mentoring experience, where he helped a new member get started with asset creation tasks.

  • New members engagement: We had a blast discussion about the current challenges facing new members e.i New people are not really going elsewhere than the usual favourite WGs (Writers, Video). Lordkizzy said many are interested in content creation, which doesn’t always match open workgroups. Vani wondered if is it that they don't have the right skillset for e.g. Treasury, Education, etc - or that they are not interested in those groups - or is it just that they don't think they have the right skills? and we need to explain it better how they can fit in?

Onboarding Challenges and Opportunities: Gorga emphasized that joining the Gamers Guild requires specific conditions, such as consistent meeting attendance and skill in creating assets. Lordkizzy noted that the major factors for guilds/workgroup is AGIX price fluctuations, which reduces the number of task a workgroup or guild can create for their members.

Lordkizzy emphasized that understanding the structure takes time and so he keeps encouraging the new members to be consistent in attending the meeting and they will with time get to understand how the system works

Love raised another challenge that new members might face in communication, difficulties understanding various accents during meetings. Love pointed out that it is difficult to understand languages that you are not used to. Lordkizzy encouraged members to ask questions without hesitation and reassured the group that regular participation helps build familiarity and understanding over time.

  • Improving Clarity and Communication in Meeting: Love raised a challenge that new members might face in communication, due to various accents during meetings. Furthermore, pointed out that it is difficult to understand languages that you are not used to. Lordkizzy encouraged members to ask questions without hesitation and reassured the group that regular participation helps build familiarity and understanding over time. Vani suggested that written agenda helps attendees understand the meeting more clearly. She acknowledged that while the GitHub board is useful, returning to written agendas in some workgroups might improve clarity and engagement.

Building on this idea of improving communications, the Read A.i transcription features was suggested to help them better understand what’s being said.

  • Connectivity challenges: Vani shared her experience with poor internet and how it helped her understand what others deal with regularly. Getting kicked out repeatedly was frustrating, and she pointed out that people with stable connections might not fully understand how difficult it can be. Vani suggested raising more awareness about connection issues. While we can’t fix them, we can support each other for example, by posting quick updates in the chat when someone drops off. Love added that when she rejoins after a disconnection, she usually asks what’s going on, and people are always quick to catch her up.

  • AOB: Next meeting is 5th June, 2025 and Clement is facilitating while CJfrankie is documenting.

Decision Items:

  • We decided to encourage members to attend multiple WGs to explore skill-building opportunities.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We decided to support one another during connectivity issues by posting meeting progress in the chat when someone rejoins.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Sucre to lead a session on “Understanding the SNET ecosystem” in May [assignee] Sucre n Spice [status] todo

  • [action] Clement to facilitate and CJfrankie to document in the next meeting [assignee] Clement Umoh, CJFrankie [status] todo

  • [action] Vani to help look for transcription tools that can provide live transcripts for meetings. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: AGIX price, Documentation, Onboarders update, New members

  • emotions: Productive, Caution , Informative

AI Sandbox/Think-tank

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Coordination Meeting and Introductions: The meeting started with a short conversation and greeting. Osmium made an announcement that he has been in discussions with Rui the CEO of MindFlex about the upcoming MindFlex Showcase, which will feature a sandbox session to present.

  • LM NoteTaker: Lord Kizzy gave a live presentation to compare the meeting summary from our previous meeting by Advance and the meeting summary from LM NoteTaker. He highlighted errors and wrong information but he concluded that the overall summary was good but also too complex. Going on he presented the meeting summary of Read.AI and also compared it.

  • AI Tool Comparisons and Feedback The discussion was led on the strengths and weaknesses of AI tools for meeting summaries, with Osmium emphasizing the structured nature of these tools but pointing out issues with pronunciation and summary accuracy. Advanceameyaw compared LM NoteTaker and Read.AI, noting that LM NoteTaker provides better organization and clarity in its summaries. It was agreed that while LM NoteTaker excels in narrative quality, both tools require human oversight to mitigate error.

  • Advanceameyaw presented a customizable workspace that allows for real-time collaboration and task tracking, highlighting its integration with various tools, including Zapier and Discord. A conference room participant inquired about the integration with Google applications and suggested creating documentation to facilitate the adoption of the tool. Osmium also mentioned sending a workflow for the video workgroup to Advanceameyaw for further ideation.

Action Items:

  • [action] Advance to outline the features he mentioned on the Airtable AI tool [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 22 May 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Osmium to coordinate with Peter to discuss the integration constraints and different aspects of the project. [assignee] osmium [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorgan to mentor Jeffery on documentation techniques after the call. [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Osmium to send a video tutorial to Advance regarding the workflow for the video workgroup. [assignee] osmium [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Ambassador Program Site, WG/GuildsToolset, ideation, AI NoteTaker

  • emotions: informative, welcoming, interactive, Understanding.

Friday 2nd May 2025

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Updates and Introductions: Ayo opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and sharing the agenda. Kareem addressed the graphics team's structure and budget, indicating that previous presentations had clarified the necessary metrics and deliverables. Ayo also prompted discussions regarding action items and the need for further clarification on project-related issues.

  • Governance Document and Q2 Initiatives Discussion: Ayo highlighted the need to finalize the governance document, which still had unresolved comments. The quorum for the marketing guild was established, requiring five core members and three task force members, with agreement that eight core members alone would suffice. CJFrankie was asked to copy the document, resolve the comments, and share it with the group for final acceptance next week.

  • Zealy Operational Call and Budget Discussion: Lordkizzy discussed the outcomes of the Zealy operational call, emphasizing the need for budget confirmations from the writers. CjFrankie confirmed that the Writers WG has a collaborative budget for the Zealy initiative, while Kenichi clarified that the budget would be $200, which is an increase from the initially budgeted $150. Ayo facilitated the discussion, ensuring clarity on the budget and collaboration among the involved workgroups.

  • Proposal Review and Role Clarification: Ayo highlighted a concern raised by LordKizzy about Eric Davies' proposal, noting that it includes charges for services the guild already funds. Ayo suggested that clarity is needed regarding the roles of project managers and other positions within the guild, urging that names of current members responsible for social media and content creation be included in the documentation.

  • Task Management and Review Process: Ayo highlighted the need for clarity on task priorities and collaboration within the team. Kareem expressed dissatisfaction with the current task submission timeline and proposed that two individuals should handle task reviews to prevent delays and ensure fairness. Lordkizzy clarified that there are already two reviewers in place and explained the payment process, which has shifted to a weekly schedule. Kareem expressed frustration over repeated delays in task creation, advocating for a structured approach to prevent one person's delay from impacting the entire guild. Ayo supported this view, highlighting the importance of setting a deadline for task submissions to ensure timely reviews and payments. Kenichi suggested that tasks should be logged from the beginning of the month to facilitate updates and reviews.

  • Decision on Timeline for Monthly Tasks: Ayo led a discussion on the appropriate number of days to allocate for task completion at the beginning of the month, with options ranging from three to seven days. The group agreed on a three-day deadline, with Kenichi clarifying that for this month, the deadline would extend to May 5th. Kareem raised concerns about the implications of this deadline and suggested that if tasks are not completed, there should be someone available to take over.

  • Challenges in Event Participation and Marketing Strategies: CjFrankie expressed difficulties in locating AI-related events and obtaining speaking slots, highlighting that many organizers are now charging for participation. Kenichi added that the current token price is a barrier and referenced a Twitter space playbook that could help improve engagement.

Decision Items:

  • it was decided in the meeting to have a 3-day deadline into the months for the task issues creation on the GitHub board.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] members to accept the final Governance doc acceptance next week [assignee] member [due] 16 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] CJFrankie to create a copy of the governance document, resolve the comments, and share it with Kizzy, Advance, and Ayo. [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 16 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Governance document, Budget Proposals , Twitter space

  • emotions: Satisfaction , Conclusive , Brief

PreviousMay 2025NextWeek 19

Last updated