Week 45

Mon 3rd Nov - Sun 9th Nov 2025

Tuesday 4th November 2025

Governance Workgroup

• Type of meeting: Weekly

• Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron, Ayomi Shuga, CollyPride, Omolola Lawson, AshleyDawn, Maxmilez

• Purpose: Regular Weekly Open Governance Meeting

• Working Docs:

  • Sentiment Survey v3 - November 2025

  • GovWG budgets

  • draft report template for Q4 2025 workgroup reports

  • TEMPLATES - Progress Reports (Treasury Guilkd and Treasury Automation)

Narrative:

1. WG budget adjustments due to low token price

No payments have been made yet this Quarter due to falling token prace. We previously did a "budget-fitting" in which we agreed to reduce payments for documentation from $20 to %15, but token price is now so low that even this is unaffordable. We also need to clarify whether we will pay facilitators - currently we cannot afford to do so in USD, even if we (as previously agreed) do take the 1,500 AGIX that was left unallocated when we worked out the Q4 budget caps.

If we switch to pricing tasks in AGIX, however, we could pay both roles - payments would work out at around 80 AGIX per task. Till now, we have been reluctatnt to pass on the problem of token price instability to the individual - but with prices so low, there might be no alternative.

Vani will look at the budget, work out exactly where we stand, and suggest an approach and post in the GovWG channel so people can agree or disagree

1. Documentation inaccuracy

Currently documentation of GovWG meetings is quite poor, with decisions often not being accurately captured. A lot of correction is needed, and Vani no longer has time to do it. Perhaps the low standards are due to low pay? Suggestion - we will try having a live, collaborative doc during the meeting itself, where everyone can take part in keeping notes; then the documenter only needs to add it to the summary tool. Or we could keep notes in the Zoom Chat.

1. Reporting template for Q4 2025 quarterly reports

We have agreed that there will be no budget consent process this Quarter, and only minimal reporting. Vani drafted a template for minimal Q4 reports that can be added to the Governance Dashboard, and Guillermo has said this probably can be added to the Dashboard in time for the end of the Quarter. But Tevo and Alfred have done considerable work on how they want to report for Treasury Guild and Treasury Automation, using a template that gives more detailed info. We agreed that this template shouldn't be used for all WGs, as it's a bit too detailed and would remove the advantage of minimising the reporting overhead for WGs; but we agreed there needs to be an option for Treasury WGs to add their full reports as a doc. We also agreed to ask WGs to list work that they planned but didn't do this Quarter - this will almost certainly be due to low token price, and will help quantify how much work is hindered by token price fluctuations.

1. Finalise sentiment survey design

Based on feedback in last meeting and async, Vani has revised the draft. Instead of a list of tick-boxes, we now have a section for each WG, and space for people to optionally give rationales for their opinions. We recognise this will make the survey quite long, but it is optional.

We agreed the survey will be anonymous - we will ask for Discord names, to ensure that respondents are indeed Core Contributors, but this will only be visible to one person (probably Peter, or whoever's accoiunt the survey is shared on) and will be redacted before results are shared.

We agreed to include only the questions on

• work quality

• impact

• transparency as we felt these were the priority issues that we wanted to know about.

We refined the rating scale for “impact” to "Large positive; small positive; no impact; negative impact".

We also agreed to include both "I don't know this WG's work" and "I prefer not to give an opinion" for all 3 questions.

1. Sentiment survey distribution We agreed on posting in Ambassador-General and Decision-To-Be-Made Discord channels for the first week; and then in the 2nd week, Peter and Vani will DM Core Contributors who haven't yet responded

The survey will go out tomorrow, 5th Nov, and close on Mon 17th. Results will be discussed in GovWG on 20th, 25th and 27th Nov, after Tevo’s analysis.

Discussion Points:

• WG budget adjustments due to low token price

• Documentation inaccuracy

• Reporting template for Q4 2025 quarterly reports

• Finalise sentiment survey design

• Sentiment survey distribution

Decision Items:

• We agreed to consider moving to pricing tasks in AGIX for the WG, or to reduce prices for tasks if we want to keep calculating prices in USD

  • [rationale] low token price means we can no longer afford to pay the planned amount in USD for documentation and facilitation tasks

• We decided to use the simple reporting template for Q4 2025 quarterly reports, but to include a field for WGs to add a more detailed report if they want to.

  • [rationale] To keep reporting simple and minimise admin obverhead for WGs

  • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

• To fix the problem of poor meeting summaries in Gov WG, in future meetings we will either keep notes live in a shared doc, or keep a note of decisions in the Zoom chat

  • [rationale] because documenters are not capturing decisions accurately; and because we want to minimise the work documenters need to do considering the low price for the task

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

• We agreed on the details of the sentiment survey - it will ask about work quality, impact, and transparency, and will give space for respondents to optionally add a rationale for their ratings.

Action Items:

• [action] Vani to look at the budget, assess our options for pricing tasks, and post in GovWG Discord channel [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 12 November 2025 [status] todo

• [action] Vani will share the sentiment survey in the main channels; Vani and Peter will DM Cire Contributors next week to ask them to complete it [assignee] CallyFromAuron, PeterE [due] 11 November 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: Core Contributor, poor documentation, collaborative documentation, sentiment survey, Q4 2025 quarterly reporting, Governance Dashboard, low token price, pricing tasks in AGIX, AGIX or USD, Fixed AGIX Rewards, outcomes, impact, work quality, transparency

• emotions: Collaborative, forward-looking, insightful, informative, Only a few of those present spoke

Thursday 6th November 2025

Governance Workgroup

• Type of meeting: Weekly

• Present: Omolola Lawson [facilitator], Évéline Trinité [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, Sucre n Spice, Ayomi Shuga, AshleyDawn, LadyTempestt, Effiom, Maxmilez

• Purpose: Regular weekly Open Governance session

• Working Docs:

Narrative:

What is the best approach to select people for task? current 'first come, first served' approach isn't working. A fairer approach could be based on:

• skills /capability (how do we test for needed skills? what questions should we ask? will the approach privilege one skill set over others? Skills audit?)

• past performance (does this mean a reputation system? How should we record people's past performance?)

• time taken to complete (Not always a priority - quick completion but to a poor standard is a problem),

• mentorship (expensive and time-consuming, but maybe needed to help people improve their skills).

• application and even interview (but who's the interviewer? Those with relevant skills? If yes, that rules them out from applying. And - how to verify people's experience/skills?)

• giving trial periods (do we take chances and allow people to learn on the job? or experiment by randomly assigning tasks to see how a person handles it? and if that is an option, for how long? It would be time consuming and might be expensive).

• nomination (WGs nominate people? or open nomination across the whole program? Is self-nomination OK? What info would nominees need to give? how would we know if info given is accurate?

• lottery approach (like jury service. Studies show it can work. But - lottery of everyone, or just of those who have relevant skills?)

We discussed the idea of implementing a more open approach as an experiment, by assigning a task to anyone who wants to do it, to see how well it works. We decided to trial it with the task of analysing the current sentiment survey - we'll invite anyone who wants to do it to offer an analysis alongside Tevo's.

We also said that for future task assignments, we could try a lottery approach, or could try nomination with fairly minimal information required.

Discussion Points:

• What is the best approach to select people for major tasks?

Decision Items:

• As an experiment, we will offer the (unpaid) task of analysing the current sentiment survey to anyone who is interested, without the need for formally applying or demonstrating capability. This will be done in addition to Tevo's analysis.

  • [rationale] to determine if this approach is effective, and compare/contrast the results

  • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

• [action] Omolola will post in the ambassador-general channel to invite volunteers to take on the survey analysis task. [assignee] Omolola [due] 11 November 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

• topics covered: voting, sentiment survey, training programs, time commitment, skills audit, trial period, mentorship, reputation, lottery, capability, timeliness, task assignment, first come first served

• emotions: Collaborative, peaceful, Determination , Confused, multiple ideas, inconclusive