Week 21

Mon 19th May - Sun 25th May 2025

Tuesday 20th May 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, PeterE, Tevo, LordKizzy, Alfred Itodele, AshleyDawn, Duke, Effiom, esewilliams, Jeffrey Ndarake, Maximilez, Kateri, Sucre n Spice, osmium

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

BUDGET REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF WORKGROUP NEEDS Vani shared the updated budget, which includes everyone’s original input plus a new column for each team’s "bare minimum" funding needs. Teams were grouped into three categories: no response (assumed okay) - Education guild, Strategy guild, Gamers guild and Education WG, satisfied with their cap, and those asking for more. We’re currently $3,300 over budget. To address this, Vani suggested reviewing the teams asking for more to see if their "minimum" needs are truly essential. Tevo questioned what we mean by "need," suggesting some teams could scale back or reuse content to save money (suspend operations for a quarter or not do anything new). Vani pushed back, warning that too many cutbacks could weaken the ambassador program, as we've seen before. Tevo clarified he wasn't suggesting a full stop, just smarter use of existing content. Others raised concerns about losing momentum if teams like video or writing pause their work. We discussed whether the video team’s tasks like content creation and social media are areas to trim. Peter stressed not singling out any team but agreed we should assess where time and money are really going. We all agreed to go back to the different Workgroups and ask them to review their funding requests carefully and look for fair, practical cuts that won’t hurt the program’s impact or team morale.

VIDEO WORKGROUP BUDGET REQUEST: EVALUATION OVERVIEW The video team is operating with a tight budget, focusing only on short-form content (like Town Hall shorts) due to lack of funds. They’ve cut rewards, reduced editing rates, and still have unpaid work from last quarter, affecting this quarter’s budget. There’s growing concern about whether some recurring tasks like shorts and Zealy engagement efforts are worth continuing. Some suggest prioritizing more creative content or cutting non-essential work. Vani urged all teams to reassess their budgets and identify what’s truly essential. Treasury guild might need extra support since it handles critical payments. As time ran out, we discussed how to move forward: finalize minimum budgets first, then redistribute any extra. Some workgroups, like Archives, are already running with barebones setups but that may not be sustainable long term. Tough choices lie ahead.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION / PRIORITIES FOR WORKGROUP Tevo proposed a tiered budget approach: give each group $1,000 upfront to see what they can do, then offer more in a second round based on performance. Vani was skeptical, saying it would take too much time and coordination, especially with Q3 budgets due soon. Peter noted that overhead costs seem stable now. Vani clarified that this isn’t about blaming anyone, but hard choices may be needed — like prioritizing content vs. governance. Some groups have asked for only small increases; others much more, raising the question of how to fairly redistribute funds.We talked on the deeper issue: what does the Ambassador Program actually value most? Governance, record-keeping, and decentralization were highlighted as core to its identity, not just optional extras. Ideas like quantifying internal vs. external impact or running a survey to gauge group importance were floated, and it was done. Vani stressed the need for groups requesting more to clearly define their true minimum needs. Lordkizzy asked if reserves could help. A lot of people gave a clear “no” using reserves for recurring costs was already rejected in previous decisions. The goal is to make tough but sustainable budget calls now. We agreed that some groups may need to cut or rethink operations, and Tevo made a point that those who need less budget shouldn’t be penalized. The focus moving forward is clarity, fairness, and smarter prioritization.

BUDGET MANAGEMENT AND WORKGROUP SUPPORT Tevo shared his frustration from last year’s budget cuts and proposed a new approach: allocate funds based on the collective sentiment of contributors, rather than strict numbers. Groups could choose to keep the funds, return some to reserves, or share with others. The idea was to make the budget allocation a collaborative, priority-driven process. Vani appreciated the idea but raised concerns about people judging workgroups they’re not directly involved in, leading to biased or vague impressions. Tevo suggested this would be iterative, with future evaluations based on impact, creating a learning loop. Peter warned that underfunding could lead to groups collapsing, which could have a negative emotional and community impact. Maxmilez suggested a compromise: keep current caps but allow some extra funding if needed, possibly using unused reserves from other groups. Vani acknowledged this but raised the question of whether some groups, like Treasury, could function on just the caps. We wrapped up the meeting with a few options for next steps: meet again on Thursday, adopt Maxmilez’s proposal, ask groups what they could do with their caps, or explore Tevo’s sentiment-based model.

PLANNING, PRIORITIZATION & FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS We raised concerns about timing, noting that while gathering input is useful, it won’t solve the deeper, systemic issues this quarter. We also called for the need to have a broader conversation on work quality, priorities, and long-term sustainability. As an interim step, we suggested setting basic budget caps for now and continuing the discussion on the next Governance Call happening on Thursday. Tevo agreed on collecting some quick input — even a simple graph or 10-minute survey could offer insights. Vani supported the idea but cautioned against relying on too small a sample. Peter emphasized the value of learning from mistakes, as long as outcomes are tracked and improvements follow. He suggested saving deeper governance talks for Thursday and Tevo volunteered to create a ranked choice voting tool or forum to help structure that discussion. It might be a bit much, he admitted, but it could help guide Thursday’s session. The meeting wrapped up with Peter encouraging contributions to the upcoming Town Hall, especially from those with non-governance topics, and confirmed that our conversation would continue in the next Open Governance call happening next week Thursday.

Discussion Points:

  • BUDGET REVIEW AND WORKGROUP NEEDS ASSESSMENT

  • VIDEO WORKGROUP BUDGET REQUEST: EVALUATION OVERVIEW

  • BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION / PRIORITIES FOR WORKGROUP

  • BUDGET MANAGEMENT AND WORKGROUP SUPPORT

  • PLANNING, PRIORITIZATION & FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Decision Items:

  • We suggested awaiting feedback from the sentiment form distributed to the channel and agreed to continue the discussion during the next Governance Call.

    • [rationale] The idea is to put a temporary plan in place while we gather feedback, so we can make a more informed decision at the Governance Call.

Action Items:

  • [action] Tevo will create a brief survey to gather input on which workgroups might be in a position to forgo funding in the upcoming quarter. While Peter will share it in the channel to invite contributions from all members. [assignee] Tevo, PeterE [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget fitting, Zealy sprints , open governance, Ambassdor program, Budget cuts, Townhall, Video Workgroup, Budget minimums, Work priorities, Sentiment analysis, Budget caps, Program reserves

  • emotions: Informative, Discursive, forward-looking, Ideating, Collaborative

Wednesday 21st May 2025

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], hogantuso, osmium, esewilliams, UKnowZork, Kateri, maxmilez

  • Purpose: Budget Discussion - Task Distribution - CCCP Discussion

Discussion Points:

  • Meeting started with Slate welcoming everybody

  • Then the topic shifted to distributing admin tasks,on which Slate agreed to distribute the task and have more representative of education guild present on public level

  • Then the discussions started in regards to the budget request, in which multiple factors were discussed along with the addition of governance framework project

  • Then the discussion in regards to the how to allocate funds for CCCP started in which funding is required only for assesor ,platform and creator of the platform

  • We also had a discussion to shift the meetings to bi weekly to reduce impact of budget cuts on education guild.

  • More discussions will be done based on the feedback received and continuing it in the next call

Action Items:

  • [action] Work upon the budget request formation [assignee] Slate [due] 28 May 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Work upon devising a way to distribute task [assignee] Slate [due] 28 May 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Progress forward with the governance framework [assignee] osmium [due] 28 May 2025 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Allocation, Process improvement

  • emotions: Collaborative

Thursday 22nd May 2025

AI Sandbox/Think-tank

In this meeting we discussed:

  • In this meeting we discussed:

  • Coordination Meeting and Introductions: The meeting started with a short conversation and greeting.

    • Discussion on automation using Airtable, Make.com, and Hyegen API for video posting and social media management. Advance experienced delays due to personal emergencies but committed to preparing a showcase for the Video Workgroup meeting on Friday, May 23, 2025. Automation aims to reduce manual workload for task and social media managers by scheduling and posting videos automatically.

    • Budgeting & Subscription Requirements: Automation proposals require subscriptions for Make.com and Heygen, but Airtable's free tier may suffice.Uncertainty about adding new automation expenses to the current budget cycle, priority is to pay out existing work first.

    • Budget Cuts & Funding Challenges: All groups face a 34% budget cut for upcoming quarters, making new initiatives difficult to fund. The current focus is on reallocating resources, possibly substituting AI exhibitions with automation ideation and adaptation. Governance decisions on extra funding are pending, and teams must prepare to work within reduced allocations.

    • Upcoming Mindplex App Showcase & Documentation: Mindplex app showcase scheduled for next Thursday; CEO invited to present new features, including a reputation engine. Mindplex integrates a reputation-based reward system, with potential for onboarding and collaboration with other workgroups. Documentation responsibilities confirmed; next documenter assigned, and ongoing project showcases reviewed.

    • Workshops, Exhibitions, and Meeting Cadence: The discussion includes reallocating the AI Sandbox exhibition budget to fund workshops or provide rewards for automation efforts, highlighting a shift in focus towards skill development and efficiency. This reallocation aims to incentivize team members like Advance, who are actively working on automation projects, fostering a culture of innovation despite budget constraints. Consideration of moving to bi-weekly meetings due to resource constraints.Meeting concluded with reminders for Advance to finalize automation work and for team to prepare for upcoming showcases.

Decision Items:

  • Reallocating the AI Sandbox exhibition budget to workshops or rewarding automation efforts, highlighting the shift in focus towards skill development and efficiency

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Advance to finalize and prepare a showcase of automation progress (Airtable, Make.com, Heygen API) and to wrap up automation work and share a report for the Video Workgroup Meeting on Friday, 23 May 2025 [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 23 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Osmium reached out to Mindplex's CEO and team to prepare for Mindplex's app showcase on the next Thursday [assignee] osmium [due] 29 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Kizzy contacted Kateri for her availability to be a documentarian on Thursday next week. [assignee] LordKizzy [status] todo

  • [action] Monitor governance discussions and budget decisions to determine feasibility of automation proposals and potential funding allocations [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 29 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Kateri will be the documenter at the next meeting on Thursday next week. [assignee] Kateri [due] 29 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorga mentoring documentary for jeffrey and do the call after the meeting [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 29 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Ambassador Program Site, WG/GuildsToolset, Ideation, Budget Allocation, Make.com, AIRTABLE AI, Mindplex, Heygen

  • emotions: informative, Insightful, welcoming, Interactive

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Alfred Itodele [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, PeterE, CallyFromAuron, Tevo, guillermolucero, AshleyDawn, advanceameyaw, Effiom, Maximilez, Jeffrey Ndarake, Clement Umoh, Sucre n Spice

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

Narrative:

During the meeting we discussed several important topics: establishing a quorum for decision-making, handling anonymity and abstentions, possible changes to the budget cap form, updates to the context-setting document, and determining who would be responsible for publicizing these changes. A key concern arose around quorum, sparked by observations that in some workgroups, only three or four members out of about sixty completed consent forms. This raised questions about whether such low participation truly represented the group’s collective opinion. The discussion focused on whether setting a quorum—a minimum number of participants needed to validate decisions—could ensure that budget approvals reflect active support rather than silent agreement or disengagement.

Participation threshold based on the number of people who complete a consent form, or quorum based on the number eligible to do so (i.e., total number of core contributors)? We all agreed that quorum should be determined based on the total number of core contributors who are eligible to participate, rather than only counting those who have completed a consent form or are actively engaging at any given moment. This approach was seen as more legitimate because it ensures that decisions represent a meaningful portion of the entire community, not just a subset of currently active members.

Flat number, or percentage? After much debate, we decided that quorum should be expressed as a percentage rather than a flat number. Using a percentage allows the quorum threshold to adjust fairly with the size of the group, accommodating both small and large workgroups. This flexibility was seen as necessary because different groups vary in size and levels of engagement, and a fixed number could either be too high for some groups or too low for others. However, it was also noted that deciding the precise percentage would be a challenge, and might require ongoing review as participation levels shift over time. There was also discussion around distinguishing between general core contributors and active decision-makers, suggesting that quorum might need different thresholds depending on who qualifies as a voting member.

What percentage? The conversation about the exact percentage needed for quorum reached a final agreement during the meeting. The figure of roughly 25% was floated as a potential starting point based on current participation data, but during the course of the meeting we decided to go with 17% as this final quorum percentage. Voting records indicated that about 30% of active members typically participate, but relying on participation alone was seen as risky since abstentions could be used to manipulate outcomes. Therefore, setting quorum as a percentage of all eligible voters rather than just those present or active was favored to ensure decisions have strong community support. Other discussion points and next steps

The topic of optional anonymity for participants was briefly raised but not fully discussed. There was also no clear resolution on how abstentions should be treated in the quorum count or decision-making process. Tevo expressed his concern about the general low engagement in some workgroups, with some citing data from the Treasury guild showing minimal participation. To address this, we suggested raising awareness and encourage more members to get involved. The meeting closed on a positive and lighthearted note, while we all expressed optimism about improving participation and refining the governance process.

Discussion Points:

  • Participation threshold based on the number of people who complete a consent form, or quorum based on the number eligible to do so (i.e., total number of core contributors)?

  • Flat number, or percentage?

  • What percentage?

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Percentage, Quorum, Workgroup, Core Contributors , Anonymity

  • emotions: Collaborative, informative, Conclusive, Insightful, relaxed, collaborative

Friday 23rd May 2025

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Updates and Introductions: Ayo led the Marketing Guild call, welcomed attendees and expressed gratitude to Martinsoki for the summary notes. Participants were encouraged to review and comment on the agenda and summary documents, emphasizing the importance of collective input. It was also mentioned that LordKizzy needs to discuss the marketing budget in the next meeting.

  • Budget Discussion and Marketing Budget Adjustments: LordKizzy highlighted the challenges in determining the budget for different workgroups, noting a significant reduction in funding allocations. The discussion included the need for a structured approach to future initiatives, with a total budget of $2,400 currently outlined. Concerns were raised about the sustainability of rewards for core members if token prices continue to reduce. Photogee expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing reduction of rewards and proposed weekly meetings to brainstorm solutions. Ese suggested a compensation model based on task completion to ensure fair pay, while it was highlighted by Ayo that finding a sustainable response to budget constraints is important. A proposal was also made by Ayo to form a committee to explore options for addressing these concerns. A discussion was led on forming a committee to address budget cuts, with members including LordKizzy, Advance, Ese, Gorga, and Kateri volunteering to participate. LordKizzy suggested meeting later that day, which was confirmed by the group. The committee is expected to prepare recommendations for the next call to discuss the impact of budget cuts and strategize solutions.

  • Discussion on Guild's Documentation and Committee Responsibilities: It was stressed that the Guild's decisions should be clearly documented and that all members should contribute to this process. Kareem pointed out that a prior call had established certain decisions, noting that there were participants who did not vote. A call for clarity in how outcomes is presented was made to ensure all members are informed and involved.

  • Proposals for Marketing Guild: Kenichi outlined the discussions regarding improvements to the Marketing Guild, highlighting the importance of accountability and structure. A collaborative document has been established for members to submit their suggestions for enhancements, with the goal of creating a comprehensive improvement proposal. The proposal will be presented for a vote among guild members.

  • Discussion on GitHub Updates and Marketing Guild Q1 Review: The efforts of the team were acknowledged, and sharing recommendations with the committee was encouraged. Ese Williams proposed weekly updates on GitHub to improve accountability and ensure timely submissions, while photogee argued that discussions should not be overly focused on the budget, suggesting that other priorities should be addressed as well. It was agreed to include this topic in the agenda for future meetings. Ese Williams summarized the marketing guild's Q1 activities, noting the participation of contributors and the need for more engagement from others. Key initiatives included spotlighting projects and enhancing social media strategies with trend-driven content. It was emphasized by a conference room participant that sharing the summary for further comments is important, and it was mentioned that a scavenger hunt proposal would be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

Decision Items:

  • It was decided in the meeting to have a focus group that will explore options and address budget cuts

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] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Ese will share the Q1 report document for comments and feedback. [assignee] esewilliams [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy, Advance, Ese, Gorga, and Kateri to organize a meeting on Saturday [assignee] LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, esewilliams, Gorga Siagian, Kateri [due] 24 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy, Advance, Ese, Gorga, and Kateri to explore options and address budget cuts next meeting [assignee] LordKizzy, Gorga, Kateri, advanceameyaw, esewilliams [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Management , Proposals, GitHub Update

  • emotions: Interactive, Understanding. , Brainstorm

Saturday 24th May 2025

Gamers Guild

Discussion Points:

  • A Roblox-based task management system with to-do, doing, and done sections. Tasks are saved using Google Sheets, and completion rewards the player with 10 XP.

  • Gorga shared a research document about the Sandbox platform.

  • Recent Roblox department creation updates include: Kizzy showcasing writer workgroup NPCs and building improvements; Rebel sharing an RnD Guild Department creation video; and Gorga reporting R&D Guild building completion (based on Google Docs and animations) but encountering a dialogue issue with Guild lead Guilermo NPC, where the conversation doesn't appear upon pressing 'E' despite embedded dialogue properties.

  • Slate announced that asset creation is open for the month of June, with a limit of two assets per member.

  • Budget will discussed in next meeting.

  • Kizzy presented a feature in the writers workgroup department allowing users to get pastries from the cafeteria. Slate suggested improving it so players can also eat the pastries.

  • Kateri reported that all previous map suggestions have been implemented, except for the road issue, which Slate will discuss with the map creators in a meeting.

Action Items:

  • [action] Department Creation - Writers Workgroup [assignee] LordKizzy, devon [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Department Creation - RnD Guild [assignee] Gorga Siagian, rebel [due] 30 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Asset Creation [assignee] Open to submission [due] 28 June 2025 [status] todo

Game Rules:

No games played

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Roblox, Task management system Module, Task updates, Map creation updates

  • emotions: Collaborative, insightful, Determined

  • games played: nogame

PreviousWeek 20NextWeek 22

Last updated