Week 19

Mon 5th May - Sun 11th May 2025

Tuesday 6th May 2025

Treasury Automation WG

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Tevo [facilitator], André [documenter], Tevo, Effiom, André

  • Purpose: We develop the Treasury System

  • Miro board: Link

  • Working Docs:

Agenda item 1 - Development Updates - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

Decision Items:

  • From May, we will record all tasks in GitHub

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • Treasury and Process Guild related Dework Boards are all Archived

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Action Items:

  • [action] Update the Summary table naming convention to be clearer in the Treasury Dashboard [assignee] André [due] 21 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Finish API integration to create recognitions in the Swarm Treasury Database. [assignee] Tevo [status] todo

  • [action] Improve Zoom session import to allow importing multiple sessions at once [assignee] Tevo [status] todo

Agenda item 2 - Workgroup Management - [carry over]

Discussion Points:

Decision Items:

  • We decided to finalise Docs in our next meeting.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

  • The next meeting will be on 10th June 2025

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Andre will draft the meeting summary and upload it to the summary tool. [assignee] André [status] done

  • [action] Tevo will review and publish the Meeting Summary on Discord [assignee] Tevo [status] done

  • [action] Effiom will continue updating the Q2 Report by addressing comments and adding relevant insights or decisions from the past two meeting summaries [assignee] Effiom [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Tool Development, Q3 proposal, Q2 report, GitHub API, Treasury Management System, Testing

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, Jeffrey Ndarake, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Effiom, advanceameyaw, Alfred Itodele

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

LOWER REWARDS PER HOUR / TASK. In our recent conversation, there was a shared concern about how rewards are being handled with the current low token price. Love brought up that it’s unclear what the suggestion to adjust rewards is really trying to fix. She pointed out that workgroups are already informally lowering rewards—people are getting paid less without it being openly acknowledged. She felt this wasn’t ideal or fair, and questioned the need to formalize something that’s already happening quietly. Vani agreed and added that adjusting rewards just to keep up the same pace of work feels misleading. If the token value drops, that should naturally impact how much we can take on. Otherwise, it creates a false impression that nothing’s changed. She also mentioned that some groups are setting fixed AGIX amounts per task instead of pegging them to USD, which automatically lowers the payout if the price drops—but that has its own downsides. Love gave a personal example of when she got paid in AGIX after a price crash. Even though she put in hours of work, her payout was far lower than usual—just $23 instead of the usual $80. She said it felt unfair and demotivating, and she had to speak up about it to the workgroup lead. Overall, we felt that the current approach doesn’t reflect the true value of contributors' time and effort, especially during downturns, and there’s a need for a more transparent and sustainable system.

WORKGROUP COMPENSATION AND QUALITY.

Our discussions focused on whether reducing rewards would address core issues like performance or quality. Guillermo emphasized the need to prioritize work and integrate strategy rather than simply cutting compensation. Peter also highlighted the ongoing tension between fair pay and budget limits, noting the shift from passion-driven to financially-driven work. Vani warned that lower pay often leads to lower quality, particularly in demanding tasks like documentation, and agreed on prioritization over broad cost-cutting. We recognized that while the ambassador program promotes a unique view of compensation, economic realities persist. A key unresolved question remains: Should workgroups have full autonomy over rewards, or should there be standardized limits?

AMBASSADOR PROGRAM BUDGET AND WORKGROUP AUTONOMY.

We had a casual but thoughtful conversation about how much freedom workgroups really have—especially around things like setting pay. Peter kicked things off, wondering aloud if there's actually a clear limit to what a workgroup can decide. He pointed out that while things seem flexible, there's also this unspoken line that no one’s quite sure about. Vani agreed and said it kind of feels like anyone can suggest anything, and if no one objects during the consent process, it just goes ahead. There's no strict rulebook, but it’s working—more or less. Peter added that who’s actually involved in that process makes a big difference too. If everyone in a group agrees, they can push things through pretty easily. We also talked about budget caps being a safety net—so even if someone wanted to pay a lot for something like facilitation, they’re still limited by how much they have to spend. Love brought it back to values, questioning whether spending a lot on something like that is really the best use of funds. Vani asked about the background of the Ambassador Programme and why they didn’t go with market rates. Peter explained it was mostly because of budget constraints—token prices were low, and they had limited funds to begin with. Wrapping up, We circled back to workgroup autonomy, saying it still feels like the heart of the issue. Vani added that sure, people can do what they want—but that doesn’t always mean it’s the best approach. There’s a sense that some choices, while technically allowed, might still raise questions or push boundaries.

SCALING AND BUDGET MANAGEMENT. Guillermo kicked things off by emphasizing that while scaling is important, it’s not a magic solution. Just scaling up or down without a clear strategy can leave us in the same spot. He asked a key question—what are we really trying to achieve with scaling? He pointed out that this also ties into autonomy: for example, if a workgroup wants to pay $100 for facilitation, that decision depends on how autonomous they are. His concern was less about cost-cutting and more about ensuring there's space for open discussion and decision-making within teams. He also reflected on how, even with past budget discussions, we keep circling back to the same core issue—demographics—and the need to adapt our approach based on the context people are working in, including macroeconomic conditions. He noted that while we initially budgeted $0.30, we’ve managed to survive the past few months on less than $0.20, thanks to suggestions from others. This sparked the idea that the data from this quarter could give us real insight into how to move forward effectively. Peter jumped in to add that most of the easy cost-saving measures have already been implemented—less frequent meetings, cuts in documentation and facilitation, and trimmed-down deliverables. It’s not just about doing less; it’s about doing smarter. Guillermo wrapped up by pointing out that for his team, the focus has shifted. It’s no longer just about building things—it’s about whether people are actually using what they build. The tighter budget has forced them to think more critically and process more data before taking action, which could be seen as a positive shift. He suggested it would be useful to gather feedback from all workgroup leads soon to understand the real outcomes of these changes and help guide the next steps.

WORKGROUP MEETING FREQUENCY AND ASYNC MANAGEMENT. Vani raised the idea of evaluating how switching workgroups to monthly meetings as a cost-saving measure has impacted everyone. She feels it’s generally worked well, but thinks there needs to be better support for asynchronous (async) work—like clearer systems, better use of tools like Discord, and maybe specific roles to help facilitate it. To understand the full picture, she suggests asking each workgroup to include in their quarterly reports how the change has affected them—what worked, what didn’t, and what they’ve learned. We all agreed with the idea, stating that it’s important to get that feedback, especially since we’ve put effort into setting up structures for async work. Vani points out that the AI Ethics group was one of the first to shift to monthly meetings and remembers initially being skeptical. She was worried that it would make it harder for new members to get involved. Love, who helps support async work in that group, says that while there were concerns at first, new people are still getting involved. They find tasks through meetings or Discord, and she follows up to make sure the work gets done. But she emphasizes that having someone in a support role like hers is key to making async work successful. Peter then asks whether they should bring this idea to the next Workgroup Sync Call or just go ahead and ask for it in the quarterly reports. Vani suggests floating the idea in the sync call first to see how people feel about it. If it gets pushback, they can figure out a different approach. The Workgroup Sync call was then scheduled for Nextweek Monday - 15:00 UTC.

DISCUSSION ON COMMUNITY WEBSITE AND UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS. Peter brought up the idea of discussing community websites, mentioning an initiative from SingularityNET to create a central entry point for Deep Funding Ambassadors and BGI. This could involve integrating native blog posts, possibly through Substack or WordPress. He suggested this topic be included on the agenda. Guillermo also added that the R&D proposal voting results will be announced today, and they plan to spotlight the winners—either by having them join live or reading short summaries if they can’t make it. We all agreed to continue this discussion during the Thursday governance meeting, which will also cover how to give feedback to workgroups when perceived quality is low. Advance chimed in, seeking clarification about the website discussion. Peter explained the goal is to have a unified site that directs people to various parts of the Ambassador Program, BGI efforts, and related developer initiatives—essentially a central hub with shared resources like calendars and event info.

Discussion Points:

  • LOWER REWARDS PER HOUR / TASK.

  • WORKGROUP COMPENSATION AND QUALITY.

  • AMBASSADOR PROGRAM BUDGET AND WORKGROUP AUTONOMY

  • SCALING AND BUDGET MANAGEMENT.

  • WORKGROUP MEETING FREQUENCY AND ASYNC MANAGEMENT

  • DISCUSSION ON COMMUNITY WEBSITE AND UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS.

Action Items:

  • [action] We will ask each workgroup to collect data on how the shift to monthly meetings has impacted them and include this information in their quarterly reports. [status] todo

  • [action] Peter to discuss the community website initiative during the Townhall meeting. [assignee] PeterE [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget fitting, DeepFunding, BGI, AGIX rate, Q2 2025 budget, Workgroup Autonomy, Budget caps

  • emotions: informative, Discursive, Brainstorm, Collaborative

Wednesday 7th May 2025

Archives Workgroup

Meeting was cancelled

Research and Development Guild

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], advanceameyaw, AshleyDawn, guillermolucero, jeffrey ndarake, LordKizzy, osmium, CollyPride, AJ, PeterE, Ayalew

  • 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

  • Project Showcase Preparation for R&D Guild

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.

  • New proposal results: Guillermo outlined the results of proposal voting, confirming that SEO received the highest votes, and all three proposals would advance to development but if the token price hits a decline, then the the propopsals with the most votes will be priortorized

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database: AJ mentioned that there hasn't been any significant feedback on the community on the SBD project and noted he has reached out to Deepfunding for Publication and testing. He also mentioned having a V2 for the project. Guillermo pointed out that before we go foe a V2 we needed to understand where the project is currently and how it could be improved

  • UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard: Guillermo mentioned that the dashboard is still in development and will likely be tested before the Q3 consent round.

  • Ambassador program website: Vasu noted the need to gather resources within the program and collaborate with the deepfunding team to create the ambassador program website. He proposed having a workshop session to ideate on this in the upcoming AI Sandbox session

Action Items:

  • [action] Guillermo Lucero will schedule a call with Andre to discuss the integration of the Governance dashboard with the Archive summary tool. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 21 May 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Advance to check if Kenichi's AWS account can be used for the project deployment. [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 21 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] A J will reach out to the deep funding team to gather feedback on the beta phase of the project. [assignee] AJ [due] 21 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: CSDB, Proposals, Ambassador Program Site, SEO, Governance Dashboard, Status update

  • emotions: Collaborative, Understanding., Satisfaction

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], AshleyDawn, esewilliams, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, LordKizzy, osmium, smilez, UKnowZork, Zalfred, hogantuso

  • Purpose: General Discussion - CCCP Portfolio Responses - Discussion about Community Website - Thinkific Features - Udemy as an alternative

Discussion Points:

  • Meeting started with some general discussion on Deepfunding , Gorga had some questions on how to join it and if they have a interview process

  • Then the topic shifted to CCCP Responses , so far 12 responses have been received. with 4 focused upon the assessor role. The responses would stay open till Saturday.

  • Then the topic shifted towards how to segregate the assessor role in which two fronts came forward. One being dividing the tasks into teams, the other one being having a single team doing all three.

  • Further discussion on this will be done when we have the final number of people applying for the assessor role, which will be discussed next meeting.

  • Slate shared the updates from the community website for the ambassador program, some views were shared along with how we can integrate our services onto the site itself

  • Then Slate shared the working of thinkific platform, and how it could be best tool for us to host the certification program.

  • There was also a suggestion to use the free tool like udemy for this purpose as that could also be a way to reach a wider audience

  • Meeting ended with some decisions to be shifted to next call

Decision Items:

  • Discuss the assesor role once we have the complete set of applicants for that role

    • [rationale] most agreed

    • [opposing] nil

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Add more details to portfolio submission form [assignee] Slate [due] 14 May 2025 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: CCCP, Project Updates, Platforms

Thursday 8th May 2025

African Guild

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Clement Umoh [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Clement Umoh, advanceameyaw, UKnowZork, CJFrankie, Duke, Jeffrey Ndarake

  • Purpose: Bi-weekly meeting of the African guild

Narrative:

Intro: The call opened with Clement suggesting a shift from bi-weekly to monthly meetings, citing the current low token price and our budget limitations. He proposed that the idea be discussed further with the Focus Group before making a final decision. CJFrankie supported the idea, suggesting that we hold meetings on the first Thursday of every month to help cut down on costs, especially given the unfavorable token rates. However, Advance expressed concerns about this change, emphasizing that bi-weekly meetings help maintain momentum and keep the workgroup effective. While he acknowledged that monthly meetings might ease the budget strain, he felt we should stick to the bi-weekly schedule if it's still feasible.

Highlights / Upcoming events Clement shared details about the upcoming Afro AI Multilingual Workshop in Nigeria, organized through the Education Initiative. This is the second phase of the workshop, and this time, the content will be translated into Hausa. Clement believes this approach will not only make the material more accessible but also encourage more people to learn the language. The workshop will spotlight African innovators and incorporate storytelling to foster deeper local engagement. Advance asked concerning communication around brand guidelines for flyer design and marketing support for post scheduling. If needed, the marketing team will assist with flyer design upon Clement’s request, but he added that he will first check with Kizzy for clarity.

AOB: Advance asked about the next steps for the Research on Indigenous AI tools for Africans. Clement explained that while there were plans to continue, the Guild has put things on hold for now because of the current AGIX token price. They’re hoping to pick it back up once the price improves.

The meeting wrapped up with Clement promising to share the storyline documents used in the Afro AI Multilingual Workshop via the Discord channel.

Action Items:

  • [action] All members should come up with ideas on how to keep the guild moving - 16th of May [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Multilingual, Q2 budget, Marketing Guild, Education initiative

  • emotions: insightful, welcoming, progressive, relaxed, collaborative

AI Sandbox/Think-tank

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Coordination Meeting and Introductions: The meeting started with a short conversation and greeting. While waiting on the agenda, Kizzy highlighted how we can push out the previous tools we have presented over the previous quarters in order not to forgo some of their real use cases for the Ambassador program.

  • Ideation Upon The Ambassador’s Program New Site: Osmium shared that a website for the ambassador program was being designed but progress paused. According to him, from the organization’s side, something similar is being built by external developers. He also suggested that we should be able to control our content, posts, and visibility and mentioned holding workshops to plan and share some ideas. Kizzy mentioned his concern he raised during Tuesday’s townhall about integrating some of the existing tools and resources like the skills database, knowledge base, and the education guild site

  • Discussion on AI Sandbox Toolset Exhibition Report: We continued on a discussion regarding the various toolsets we have presented and the ones we could possibly adopt. While there was no conclusion on settling on one, Kizzy mentioned some of the tools like HeyGen AI being used by the education guild while he shared the report for us to bring our suggestions. He emphasized the need for clear use cases to justify adopting new tools like Google LM Notetaker over existing ones like Read AI rather than just creating report. Osmium added the use of Zapier for marketing campaigns and sending emails. Advance gave a broader look of Airtable AI and how it can serve as a centralised work management space that can track activities and as well integrate some “traditional” tools and even Zapier. He added that it would not be an easy transition, assuming we adopt it. The discussion later continued with Podcastle being suggested as a tool instead of Riverside, which has been adopted by marketing to help with their podcast, as mentioned by Gorga, with settling on how to deal with watermark issues

Action Items:

  • [action] Advance to outline the features he mentioned on the Airtable AI tool [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 15 May 2025 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Ambassador Program Site, WG/GuildsToolset, ideation, toolset exhibition

  • emotions: informative, welcoming, interactive, educative

  • other: Colly made an announcement about the AI Ethics discussion meeting regarding AI Emotions: The Ethics of ASI Experiencing Emotion for Human Value Alignment, May 19th at 14:00 UTC on Zoom

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], guillermolucero, UKnowZork, PeterE, Maximilez, CallyFromAuron, AshleyDawn, Effiom, advanceameyaw, Jeffrey Ndarake, esewilliams, Clement Umoh, Scatman

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

Narrative:

QUALITY STANDARDS Guillermo reflects on how ambassador program has grown and improved over time, learning from both mistakes and successes. He feels the evolution has been organic, shaped by regular retrospectives and the strengths of the people involved. He sparks a conversation about what “quality” really means. He wonders how our standards have changed over the past year, how it varies across different teams, and how experience plays a role. It’s a tricky topic, and he admits he doesn’t have all the answers—he just wants to open it up for honest discussion. Vani responds by saying it’s tough to define a single standard because everyone’s work is so different. She thinks creating detailed rules might not be realistic, but points out that people usually recognize when something isn’t quite up to par. Instead of rigid standards, she suggests we might need a way for people—especially those outside a team—to raise concerns when something doesn’t feel right.

WORKGROUP AUTONOMY AND QUALITY We discussed whether it's appropriate for people outside a workgroup to comment on the quality of that group's work. Peter feels that members within a group are better positioned to address issues, as they're involved in the discussions and can spot problems more easily. However, he notes that people outside the group often hesitate to point out small issues, even though they shouldn't. Vani agrees that minor details may not always be worth raising, but emphasizes the importance of having a way to address more serious concerns about overall quality without causing tension between teams.

QUALITY CONTROL AND EVALUATION PROCESS We discussed how to evaluate work quality, particularly balancing attention to detail with broader results. Guillermo emphasizes that details matter, especially once a basic quality standard is set, but that we shouldn’t judge work solely on small flaws. He suggests a system for improving quality by assigning dedicated reviewers—similar to how editors work in publishing—since creators can't handle everything alone. Vani adds that the level of scrutiny should depend on the context: internal documents can be less polished, but anything outward-facing should meet higher standards, including proofreading. We all agreed on the need for a clear process to address quality and feedback without causing conflict, and Guillermo proposes looking at examples of past work that have been particularly strong to help set those standards moving forward.

DISCUSSION ON DELIVERABLES AND STANDARDS Guillermo suggests that each workgroup should take a close look at their successes to help set clear standards for things like efficiency and sustainability. This would give everyone a way to measure and improve their efforts. Peter, on the other hand, wonders how we set those standards. He talks about the community website’s welcome video, which he initially thought needed an update, but upon watching, realized it was still really well done. He questions how we should compare new work to something that already feels like a high standard. Vani added, pointing out that it’s not just about whether something is good, but also about whether anyone is actually seeing it. She highlights the idea that it’s possible to create something great, but if it goes unnoticed, its value is limited. Guillermo agrees, adding that we need to think about both the quality and the effectiveness of our work. He wraps up by referring to some shared notes about improvements in the governance process and how members can now provide more input.

IMPROVING GOVERNANCE AND QUALITY FEEDBACK MECHANISMS We discussed how to address concerns about work quality within a team. Guillermo mentions that each workgroup has its own quality standard but questions if these standards are working effectively. He asks whether issues can be raised informally without requiring a detailed quality standard. Vani responds that the current process, especially through consent on budgets, doesn't allow for effective communication of minor quality concerns, leading to confrontational or awkward conversations. She suggests the need for a better way to address these issues outside formal processes. Guillermo agrees, noting that constructive feedback should be encouraged. Vani compares this to discussions in deep funding about the importance of quality and emphasizes the value of reflective practice for teams to assess whether they have met their objectives.

EXPLORING REFLECTIVE PRACTICES AND FEEDBACK MECHANISM We discussed the idea of incorporating "critical friends"—trusted outsiders who provide honest, constructive feedback—into our work processes. Vani suggests having periodic check-ins with such individuals. Guillermo humorously notes that these friends are often avoided because of their blunt honesty but agrees with the concept, proposing possibly forming a small team of such reflective peers. Peter adds that it’s hard to get unspoken feedback and suggests implementing anonymous feedback mechanisms, like forms or a “trust person,” to surface concerns safely. We all acknowledged the potential challenges with anonymity but sees value in setting quality standards and fostering open, honest reflection.

QUALITY STANDARDS AND WORKGROUP ENGAGEMENT We discussed how to define and pursue quality within collaborative workgroups. Guillermo emphasizes using references, templates, and standards—whether from within the group or outside industries—to guide creative and productive processes. He suggests that criticism should be constructive, aiming for improvement rather than just pointing out flaws. The conversation touches on the need for reflection, inclusivity, and efficiency, noting that higher quality often comes with practice and iteration. Vani raises the issue of quarterly reports lacking depth, often being superficial or self-congratulatory, and suggests adding reflective sections. However, there's uncertainty about who should define what constitutes "quality." Peter argues that workgroups typically self-regulate quality and that external imposition could feel intrusive, although he agrees it's fine to point out clearly low-quality outcomes. We overall seems to agree that quality should be functional and impactful rather than merely polished or award-winning, and that shared standards, reflection, and involvement are key to improving quality over time.

KPIs AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES We discussed how to improve and measure the quality of content—particularly videos—within the organizational setting. Guillermo emphasizes focusing on clear, measurable KPIs and investing more deeply in fewer, higher-impact efforts (e.g., 2–3 videos with strong engagement vs. 10 with none). He suggests that quality should be defined by purpose and audience engagement, not just volume or aesthetics. There's a broader debate about decoupling quality discussions from budget decisions, as raised by Vani, to encourage honest feedback without fear of funding cuts. Guillermo and Peter acknowledge that while it's ideal to have open, constructive criticism, current dynamics often make that difficult. Maximilez proposes a more systematic solution: monthly content reviews and ratings for each workgroup, which could foster accountability and improvement through indirect critique and positive competition. Overall, we all seems to agree that clearer objectives, audience awareness, and mature communication are necessary for sustainable growth and quality improvement.

DISCUSSION ON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES We discussed how to move forward with the "honest friends" approach and other related ideas. While there’s recognition that many of these concepts have been addressed in workgroups and guilds already, the main concern is how to include all program members in the process and turn these discussions into concrete actions. There's agreement on the need to summarize the meeting, list potential actions, and plan implementation. We proposed creating a simple document or spreadsheet before the next meetings (Monday - Workgroup Sync call and Tuesday - Governance Call). Peter also suggests adding a reflection section in the quarterly report and notes that some initiatives, like the honest friends idea, may require time or budgeting. We all agreed to begin with low-cost, simple solutions and continue the discussion next week Monday (Async call slated for 15:00 UTC).

Decision Items:

  • Ask people during the Async call happening on Monday- 15:00 UTC if it will be nice for Workgroups to add self reflections in their quarterly reports.

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani will create a one-pager document outlining how to implement the discussed ideas in the next Workgroup sync call. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Quality Control, Workgroup Autonomy, Async call

  • emotions: informative, Discursive, Collaborative, forward-looking

Friday 9th May 2025

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Updates and Introductions: The meeting began with Peter and Gorga acknowledging the absence of the host, Ayo, and the lack of a formal agenda. A suggestion was made for Martinsoki to share the previous week's summary notes to guide the discussion. The group also addressed the need for clarity on governance documents and the upcoming Zealy initiative, which is set to kick off on May 12th.

  • Task Creation and Review Process Concerns: Kareem raised concerns about the inefficiencies in the task creation and review process, particularly criticizing Ese and LordKizzy for not reaching out for clarifications despite having ample time for reviews. He also pointed out the lack of oversight on deliverables and questioned why team members are not held accountable for their responsibilities. Additionally, he mentioned difficulties in getting responses regarding the graphic design workgroup's budget management. Lordkizzy explained the timeline for task reviews in the Marketing Guild, stating that there are two reviews each month and that tasks must meet KPIs for payment. He highlighted the importance of having two reviewers for tasks to ensure thorough oversight. Additionally, he addressed concerns regarding the design workgroup's submissions, indicating that tasks must be reviewed to avoid budget criticisms. Kareem addressed concerns about his contributions to the design workgroup, asserting that his designs are documented and serve as templates for ongoing projects. He highlighted that his work is visible to the group, which negates the need for an extra reviewer. Ese addressed the allegations concerning task management and payment schedules. The efforts made to communicate tax updates to the team were explained, and the adjusted payment processes—revised in response to previous deficits—were reiterated. Kareem emphasized the importance of proper documentation and clear communication to prevent misunderstandings. Kareem raised issues about the review of design tasks, suggesting that there should always be someone available to oversee the work, especially when team members are unavailable. He criticized the practice of submitting tasks for payment without proper review and called for clearer guidelines on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for graphics. The need for established KPIs to improve accountability and clarity within the team was supported by Photogee. Photogee clarified his stance on task reviews, stating that he believes only one person should handle the review process to prevent complications. Kareem stressed the importance of reaching a consensus on the way forward, Ese mentioned that certain tasks could not be processed for payment due to pending submissions from other team members. The discussion highlighted ongoing confusion regarding task verification and payment. LordKizzy questioned the necessity of waiting for all submissions before conducting reviews, emphasizing that reviews are typically scheduled at the end of each month. They also expressed confusion over a governance decision made without full consensus, particularly regarding quorum and objections. Kareem proposed adding a third reviewer to streamline the process, which was generally supported by other participants.

  • Budget Management and Decision-Making Processes: Kenichi called for LordKizzy to deliver a comprehensive report on the budget, detailing monthly spending and its allocation. He stressed that this information is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of their financial decisions. LordKizzy reinforced the transparency of their financial records and pointed out the necessity of resolving objections before reaching decisions, indicating that discussions are ongoing. Kenichi highlighted the necessity for the Marketing Guild to focus on delivering metrics that correlate with budget spending, urging LordKizzy to present data on their contributions. He expressed that sharing weekly updates would foster clarity and accountability among members. Kenichi also criticized the tendency to revisit previously discussed topics, advocating for a more structured approach to meetings. LordKizzy clarified that the Marketing Guild is not deepfunding and that quarterly reports are created to assess budget allocation. Kenichi expressed frustration over the lack of detailed metrics and accountability from team members, suggesting that more frequent updates could improve transparency and performance evaluation. The idea of monthly audits to enhance the reporting process was supported by a conference room participant. LordKizzy questioned Kenichi about his reporting practices and the accessibility of Zealy metrics, highlighting delays in communication. Kenichi defended his reporting efforts, stating he shares metrics at the beginning of each month and that the Zealy data requires individual task checks. The discussion revealed ongoing frustrations regarding communication and accountability within the guild.

  • Kareem Thomas suggested to have additional calls as needed to address ongoing issues without waiting for the next scheduled meeting.

Action Items:

  • [action] Cj Frankie to copy the document and resolve the comments on the governance documents and share them with the group for final acceptance by next week. [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 23 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Governance document, Budget Management

  • emotions: Discursive, Reflective, Interactive

PreviousWeek 18NextWeek 20

Last updated