Week 45
Mon 3rd Nov - Sun 9th Nov 2025
Monday 3rd November 2025
AI Ethics WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], lola lawson [documenter], Alfred Itodele, Duke, CallyFromAuron, EstherG, LadyTempestt, CollyPride, Jeffrey Ndarake, zainab, PeterE, merry lagutina, UKnowZork, sharmilla, grandi, Rems, lola lawson
Purpose: Regular monthly meeting of the AI Ethics WG
Narrative:
Documentation Updates:
October meeting documentation (by Grandi) is complete but the link was not added to GitHub issue. Vani will update the board.
AI Ethics MOOC:
The idea of doing a MOOC as a group has been on the agenda for long. Last meeting, we said we would co-ordinate async and start attending one (either Coursera or FutureLearn), but it didn't happen due to people's lack of time; so we agreed to close the issue. The idea can always be revisited in future.
Q4 2025 budget:
Last meeting, we made some budget-fitting cuts, and agreed that the WG admin team will keep an eye on things. But with the token price now extremely low, adjusting the rate again no longer makes sense. We agreed that we will instead move to calculating task prices in AGIX.
This means that the payment for tasks in real terms will be very low - but if prices do rise, then payees will benefit (as long as they have been able to hold their AGIX, rather than offramping immediately). But if people feel that the payments are now too low in real terms for it to be worth them completting tasks that are assigned to them, this is understandable.
The admin team have already elected to take their Q4 payment in advance . Other contributors were asked via Discord last week to indicate their preferred option directly on their GitHub issue - to be paid immediately the task is completed; to wait until the end of the Quarter for payment; or to not complete the task. If they choose not to complete the task, we will try to leave it assigned to them and carry over to next Quarter when hopefully token price will be better - though this does depend on budget decisions for Q1 2026 and whether or not the WG is still doing the task in question.
Outstanding tasks from earlier Quarters
• A few older transcription tasks remain, including reassigned items from past quarters. • Merry is assisting with transcript checking, so that we can get this completed faster • All task-specific updates will be managed on the GitHub board.
Interviewing & Transcription Tasks (Q4):
• Interview and transcription task updates were shared (see GitHub board for details) - most people have elected to continue with tasks and are on track to meet deadlines, but a few have asked for the task to be carried over to next Quarter
Interview coding session:
• A short introductory session on interview coding, led by Esther, is scheduled for 3rd December. This will be a simple walkthrough on identifying themes, tags, and patterns in interview transcripts.
“Hearing the Silenced Voices”: BGI Nexus Ideation Round
The WG admin team have submitted a proposal to the current BGI-Nexus ideation round, drawing on the WG's experiences of researching with the public in Africa, and focusing on AI-supported interviewer training for marginalized communities. It aims to help local interviewers engage with their own demographic groups. If successful, the proposal will eventually lead to the creation of an RFP for solutions to address the issue of training interviewers from marginalised communities, to which WG members will be able to submit proposals.
Decision Items:
All Q4 tasks will now be priced in AGIX, not USD. AGIX equivalents of the agreed USD prices will be calculated at an assumed exchange rate of $0.23 (the rate that we calculated our budget at when we did a round of budget fitting in October).
[rationale] Low Token price.
People with tasks assigned to them can decide whether to proceed with their tasks or not. They should note their preference in their GitHub Issue
[rationale] Tne AGIX prices for tasks have been calculated according to the AGIX equivalent of the USD prices that were set at the start of the Quarter, which were based on an AGIX price of $0.23. Since price is now much lower, this may mean that payments for tasks are very low in real terms
Interview tasks not completed by 3the 1st October deadline are being either reassigned, given a revised deadline of 14th Nov, or moved back to to-do if the assignee prefers not to complete them at the current low payment rate.
Action Items:
[action] Sucre to update GitHub links and oversee payments [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 14 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Love to follow up with clement, Maxmillez and advanceameyaw regarding task status [assignee] love [due] 14 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] All memebers to update their GitHub issues with payment choice and completion status [assignee] all [due] 14 November 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: task management, AI Ethics MOOC initiative, Q4 2025 budget adjustment, AGIX budgeting, low token price, AI Ethics MOOC Study group, BGI Nexus Ideation Round, Deepfunding RFP ideation, interview coding
emotions: Collaborative, practical, Understanding., Friendly, forward-thinking
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
Narrative:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Ambassador Town Hall
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], NA, CallyFromAuron [documenter], Stephen [QADAO], Tevo, CallyFromAuron, AshleyDawn, guillermolucero, PeterE, CollyPride
Purpose: Regular weekly get-together for the Ambassador Program. Discussion of community-wide issues; sharing of updates and info; and in the last meeting of each month, an update from each Workgroup on what they have been doing
Town Hall Number: 171
Working Docs:
Timestamped video:
00:00 Introduction & Initial Discussions 01:57 Tevo's Automation Project Update 04:00 Town Hall Overview & Governance Update 14:39 Archive Workgroup & Meta Prototype 19:30 Knowledge Base & Treasury Workgroup Updates 27:56 R&d And Latam Initiatives 40:57 General Discussion & Q&a 50:52 Ai Ethics & Tqnn Integration Announcement 58:16 Closing Remarks & Token Price Discussion
Town Hall Summary:
Peter announced a memorial session for Rama Zomaletho from DeepFunding, who recently passed away.
The usual WG updates at the end of last month didn't happen due to low attendance, so this Town Hall was a "WG UPdates" session instead.
Updates:
Governance WG:
Governance WG launched the new sentiment survey aimed at assessing workgroup effectiveness - closing date 17th Nov. There will be no formal budget consent process for Q1 2026 budgets, and budget caps will remain the same as this Quarter, to alleviate administrative burden. Workgroups will only need to submit a brief report on Q4 activities by early December; a template for this will be in the Governance Dashboard.
Archives WG:
Stephen presented a prototype simulation utilizing MeTTa symbolic rules to illustrate a reputation system, allowing users to manipulate parameters and visualize agent interactions. See https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/288 and https://asi-chain-metta-simulation-dashboard.streamlit.app Archives' current focus is ingestion of e.g. meeting summary data and use of AI tools in an auditable way - see Unified Graph Analysis Report - (Github Pages) - https://singularitynet-archive.github.io/Graph-Python-scripts/#summary and https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/Archive-RAG We discussed the regular MeTTa group ttthat meets fortnightly, and said that Archives should share some of its current work there.
Treasury, Process and Knowledge Base:
Tevo explained that Knowledge Base WG has had a strategic shift to fortnightly sessions focused on preparation and brainstorming, which are recorded, to enhance collaboration and decision-making in main meetings. Treasury activities: there has been a backlog in updates related to the treasury GitHub dashboard and plans to test GitHub functionalities. Tevo Kask shared his recent coding efforts, highlighting a significant investment of time to automate a previously manual task, which has streamlined his workflow and improved prototype production. Peter acknowledged the importance of automation and the need to engage core contributors more effectively.
R&D, LatAm:
Guillermo gave updates on R&D and LatAm initiatives, emphasizing the importance of cultural context in AI development and the need for structured data management. The discussion also highlighted the significance of community involvement in understanding complex concepts like reputation and governance.
Open topics
Colly Pride announced the integration of the Toridian Quantum Neural Network into OpenCog, which aims to enhance AI contextual reasoning and reduce energy consumption.
The next WG Sync Call will address the implications of the current low token price.
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Rama Zomaletho memorial, sentiment survey v3, Toridian, low token price, MeTTa Coder Lab, Q4 2025 reporting, Governance Dashboard
emotions: quiet, technical focus, low attendance
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
African Guild
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Duke [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Sucre n Spice, Clement Umoh, Kateri, Udoma, Omolola Lawson, martinsoki, Duke, UKnowZork
Purpose: Bi-weekly Meeting of the African guild
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Intro: The meeting, facilitated by Duke, opened with a clarification about the rescheduling confusion that followed the BGI Summit. Members acknowledged lapses in communication, which had caused several participants to miss the previous meeting. Duke asked whether to proceed with the small turnout or postpone until more members joined. After brief discussion, the group agreed to continue since key matters—task assignments, budgeting, and next steps required attention.
Highlights / Key Discussions
Task Sheet Review and Participation Duke shared the task sheet that had been circulated two weeks earlier, outlining all planned activities for the quarter. He noted that participation in filling it out had been minimal, though most of the contributors were present. As he shared his screen, the group reviewed the task list, which included initiatives like the Lean Guild Challenge, Afro-AI storytelling, Twitter Spaces, newsletters, and a physical meeting in Abuja.
Members exchanged light banter as Duke pointed out that UnowZork’s name appeared across nearly every section, drawing playful comments about being the team’s “bulldozer.”
Task Redistribution and Role Balancing During the discussion, Martin volunteered for additional responsibilities, while SucrenSpice suggested that UnowZork narrow down their roles to create room for others. Duke clarified that holding multiple roles wasn’t an issue as long as participation remained balanced. After brief adjustments, assignments were redistributed:
Clement, Martin, and Kateri took on newly defined roles.
UnowZork and Udoma retained two to three key tasks each.
SucrenSpice reminded everyone that focusing on one core deliverable per person would ensure efficiency and accountability.
Assignments and Deliverables Each member’s responsibilities were clarified as follows:
Lean Guild Challenge: Team to begin work immediately and coordinate with Ese for design and publicity.
Newsletters (Nov–Dec): Martin to draft and submit for review to Duke or SucrenSpice before publishing.
Afro-AI Storytelling: Clement and Udoma to finalize scripts and video production concepts.
Twitter Space Event: Lola to lead coordination and hosting.
Physical Village Meeting (Abuja): Duke and Udoma to handle logistics and planning.
Cross-Guild Content: UnowZork to collaborate with the LATAM team.
Quarterly Showcase: SucrenSpice to compile a consolidated presentation of all outputs.
The tone remained upbeat, with a mix of humor and productivity as the group confirmed roles and deliverables.
Budget and Resource Efficiency When budget constraints surfaced, Duke encouraged minimizing costs by having the same individuals handle multiple related tasks for instance, combining infographic design and publicity duties. SucrenSpice clarified that Esther’s role in the Lean Guild Challenge would remain facilitative, not as an additional paid implementer.
Duke emphasized that all teams should begin their assigned tasks immediately, with some outputs particularly publicity materials and newsletter drafts expected by the following week.
AOB: As the conversation wound down, Duke proposed a practical step: Everyone should maintain consistent communication to prevent rescheduling confusion, balance task distribution to ensure shared workload and efficiency, prioritize low-cost, high-impact deliverables given limited funding and ensure all assignments have visible progress before the next session.
Action Items:
[action] UknowZork and Kateri to begin Lean Guild Challenge coordination with Ese [assignee] UKnowZork, Kateri, esewilliams [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Martinsoki to prepare November–December newsletters and share drafts for review [assignee] martinsoki [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Clement and Udoma to finalize Afro-AI storytelling concept (scripts + visuals) [assignee] Clement Umoh, Udoma [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Omolola to organize and coordinate Twitter Space event [assignee] Omolola Lawson [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Duke and Udoma to coordinate, organize and plan logistics for Abuja physical meeting [assignee] Duke, Udoma [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
[action] SucrenSpice to compile quarterly showcase report [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 30 November 2025 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: BGI Summit, Lean Guild Challenge, Afro-AI Storytelling, Newsletter, Abuja Meeting, LATAM Collaboration, Budget Coordination
emotions: Focused, collaborative, humorous, members left with a clear sense of direction and renewed energy to execute their tasks.
Last updated