Week 41
Mon 6th Oct - Sun 12th Oct 2025
Monday 6th October 2025
AI Ethics WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], Grandi, CallyFromAuron [documenter], Gorga Siagian, CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, AshleyDawn, barnabas, CollyPride, Alfred Itodele, LadyTempestt, Sucre n Spice, EstherG, Omolola, AJ, Mariia Lagutina
Purpose: Monthly meeting of the AI Ethics workgroup
Working Docs:
Narrative:
AI Ethics MOOC
As agreed, we revisited the idea of joining a MOOC and meeting to discuss. Some members (Gorga, Alfred, MaxMilez, Guillermo, Vani) are still interested despite pressure of other work. FutureLearn (3-week course) and Coursera (4 weeks) were agreed on the best options as they are relatively short. Final decision will be made async, and we'll aim to start soon and review progress during the November meeting.
BGI-25
Several workgroups (R&D, LatAm, Archives, ThinkTank, and (tbc) African Guild) will be presenting sessions via Zoom on Day 3 of the conference (23rd October), which is an "Unconference" (a more paricipatory, less planned event where anyone can present a session). AI Ethics WG is taking a co-ordinating role for this, and will also be presenting a session to showcase our research work. We assigned Sucre as presenter, Love as facilitator, and Lola as documenter for our session.
Esther and Vani are preparing web text connecting the BGI 25 Unconference to the ambassador programs. A draft will be ready by tomorrow or soon after, and final breakout room timings will be added once confirmed.
We discussed what should be said in the session. Group members highlighted the cultural advantages of interviewer–interviewee alignment, noting that shared backgrounds especially within West African contexts often yield richer and more authentic responses. Members raised concerns about interviewee diversity and the risk of over-centralizing certain perspectives within the research. The group also considered the challenges and benefits of conducting interviews in non-English languages, recognizing the potential for deeper engagement and more nuanced insights; and mentionbed the importance of how we train interviewers and transcribers
WG members were invited to contribute async any further personal insights on interviews and transcription processes by the Wednesday, and these will be incorporated ino the presentation. There will be a final planning meeting this Wednesday at 9 a.m. UTC to finalize breakout content.
This work is funded directly by the Foundation, not from the WG budget.
Interview coding
Merry (Mariia), an intern supporting Esther with qualitative research, introduced herself. She has been coding the WG's interviews and has so far completed 4. She will be taking part in the group's session at the BGI-25 virtual unconference to present early findings.
Budget fitting
The Q4 2025 budget, initially approved at an exchange rate of $0.28, was reviewed due to volatile and lower actual rates. Budget items cancelled: community engagement work (other than BGI-25); coding interviews. Budget items reduced: 11 transcripts rather than the planned 14. These adjustments bring the equivalent rate to a safer $0.22. The workgroup agreed to maintain a cautious approach, with further reviews planned for November based on exchange rate developments.
Q4 2025 tasks
Interviewing and transcription tasks were assigned. We noted that Jeffrey completed a bonus interview in the previous quarter; his payment will be processed in the current one. We also assigned meeting documentation tasks for this Quarter's meetings. Vani will add all tasks to the github board in the coming week.
Payment structure for short interviews
Reminder that interviewers should aim for 30 mins or more of actual interview material (i.e. not counting introductions, going through the consent form, etc). If they don't reach this, the payment structure is 25 mins and upward - full pay, $25 20-25 mins: $15 10-20 mins: $10 Under 10 mins: $0
We also confirmed that Vani will offer support via DM to first-time interviewers if they need it.
Decision Items:
Budget adjustment - the group agreed to remove community engagement and coding activities due to budget constraints. The number of transcription tasks was reduced from 14 to 11.
[rationale] due to fall in token price
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
4 interviews is budgeted for this quarter - one already completed by Jeffrey. To assign the other 3, the admin team prioritized those who haven't done interviewing before. Deadline: 31st October.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
11 transcription tasks were assigned. All recordings will be anonymised before giving to a transcriber. Deadline: 14th November. Only transcribers with a record of high-quality work will be assigned tasks this time.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Vani will create relevant GitHub issues for Q4 tasks. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 13 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] All participants: Contribute to the spreadsheet with insights for the BGI 25 breakout room by Wednesday. [assignee] All Participants [due] 8 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Presenter, Facilitator, and Documenter for the BGI-25 session [assignee] Sucre n Spice, Omolola, LadyTempestt [due] 23 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Admin team to monitor and review the budget adjustments, with potential revisions in November. [assignee] CallyFromAuron, Sucre n Spice, LadyTempestt [due] 3 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Esther and Vani to coordinate and develop promotional materials for the BGI 25 Unconference [assignee] EstherG, CallyFromAuron [due] 8 October 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: outreach and promotion plan for BGI 25, AI Ethics MOOC Study group, interviewing, transcription, work standards, BGI-25 Virtual Unconference, interview coding, Q4 2025 budget, Budget fitting, qualitative research
emotions: Collaborative, Interactive, Solution oriented, Discursive
WG Sync Call
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron, Effiom, AshleyDawn, Jeffrey Ndarake, Alfred Itodele, guillermolucero, AndrewBen, hogantuso
Purpose: Monthly call for all Workgroups to discuss Program-wide issues
Agenda Items:
How to handle unallocated funds from the reserve
Discussion:
The meeting opened with a focus on the agenda topic: how to handle unallocated funds, specifically the governance workgroup’s request for leftover funds from the Q4 budget. The discussion centered on funds left over due to budget cap discretion:
1,554 AGIX (the suggested Q4 budget reserve amount) 3,155 AGIX unused by the Moderators Workgroup (Peter noted this wasn’t included in the quarterly report because he was on holiday and there wasn’t enough time to finalize it).
This left a total of roughly 4,709 AGIX unallocated. The Governance WG had already proposed using the 1,554 AGIX to compensate for facilitation of governance meetings, which are currently unpaid. Alfred confirmed he was the one who originally made this proposal.
There was debate on how to handle these funds. Normally, unused money returns to reserves. Peter said he supported governance WG work but worried it could be unfair to other groups if the funds were allocated without following a clear process. Alfred suggested reframing it: governance WG would “collect” the funds before they entered the reserves, rather than pulling them back out afterward.
Vani added context: in the budget caps meeting, the agreement was to return surplus funds to reserves “for now.” Later, in a governance meeting, it was suggested that governance WG add the 1,500 AGIX to its budget and rely on objections if anyone disagreed. That passed the consent round. She also emphasized that the 3,155 AGIX from the Moderators Workgroup should be treated separately, since no discussion had taken place about reallocating it. By default, it should return to reserves.
Everyone agreed that if a workgroup wants additional funds, there should be a clear process for requesting them from reserves. At the same time, Vani cautioned against making the process too complicated or turning it into a “begging letter” system. Guillermo suggested moving decisions to the Governance Dashboard, but Vani explained that the Dashboard doesn’t yet support the “does anyone object?” style of decision-making.
In conclusion, we agreed to put two items in the “Decision to be Made” channel: Ask contributors if they agree to allocate 1,500 AGIX to governance WG. Confirm that the moderators’ leftover 3,155 AGIX should go back to reserves.
We also agreed that if anyone objects to the second point, alternative proposals for using that amount could then be discussed.
Action Items:
[action] Vani and Peter will draft the decision items and post them in the Decision to be Made channel for contributor approval. [assignee] CallyFromAuron, PeterE [due] 6 October 2025 [status] done
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Budget Request, unallocated funds, Governance workgroup, Moderators workgroup, Ambassador Program reserves, Decision Making Process, Consent Process, Governance Dashboard
emotions: Organised, Discursive, Collaborative, Resourceful, forward-looking, Conclusive
Tuesday 7th October 2025
Treasury Automation WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Alfred Itodele [documenter], Tevo, Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, André, Kateri, Effiom
Purpose: We develop the Treasury System
Miro board: Link
Working Docs:
Agenda item 1 - Development Updates & Progress - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Tevo presented a detailed walkthrough of development progress since the last meeting, covering numerous updates on the GitHub Kanban board. Key backend updates include adding a Task Type column to distinguish 'contributions' from 'participations', creating tooling to archive old data and improve performance, and enhancing the Discord session logging for better accuracy and user experience. The system can now warn about duplicate Zoom names in the same call to prevent misattribution of tasks André updated the guild about the minor but important updates he added to the Discord and Zoom APIs, including adding error logging. He confirmed he will start on Q4 development tasks over the weekend. Tevo mentioned the personal development backlog he is clearing, and he is considering future projects like integrating ChatGPT for task suggestions
Action Items:
[action] André to update the relevant GitHub issue with his completed API tasks. [assignee] André [due] 14 October 2025 [status] done
Agenda item 2 - Workgroup Management & Task Distribution - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
The first point of management was assigning the creation of the meeting summary for the current session. Alfred volunteered to lead the drafting, with UknowZork offering to review.
Decision Items:
Alfred will draft the meeting summary, and UknowZork will review it
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Alfred will draft the meeting summary, and UknowZork will review it [assignee] Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork [due] 14 October 2025 [status] done
Agenda item 3 - Coordinating the Q4 Report - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
A major discussion focused on streamlining the quarterly reporting process to make it more efficient. The group explored creating report templates. A key question was whether to create one unified template for all workgroups or specific templates for each. The idea of a tabbed report was proposed: a high-level "overview" suitable for the Governance Dashboard, with links to "in-depth" tabs containing detailed charts, logs, and community feedback. There's a general feeling that engagement with reports is low. The group decided to actively gather feedback from other workgroups to understand how to make reports more valuable and easier to consume.
Decision Items:
The workgroup will start by creating a dedicated report template for the Treasury Automation workgroup. The group will seek feedback by adding agenda items to the Governance call, Workgroup Sync call, and Town Hall, asking specific questions about report readability and meeting attendance.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Alfred to create the Q4 report template for the Treasury Automation workgroup [assignee] Alfred Itodele [due] 14 October 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Alfred will attend the Governance and Workgroup Sync calls to ask for feedback. Tevo will attend the Town Hall to ask for feedback. [assignee] Tevo [due] 31 October 2025 [status] in progress
Agenda item 4 - Coordinating the Q1 2026 Proposal - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
We discussed whether the proposal document also needed a template. After reviewing the previous quarter's proposal, the consensus was that it is already lean and serves as a good template itself, requiring only minor updates to links, deliverables, and budget numbers each quarter.
Decision Items:
A new template for the quarterly proposal is not needed. The existing document will be copied and updated for Q1 2026.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Effiom to draft the Q1 2026 proposals for the Treasury Guild and Treasury Automation workgroups by updating the previous versions. [assignee] Effiom [status] todo
Agenda item 5 - Budget Leftovers & The "Happy Money Game" - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
The "Happy Money Game" experiment from Q3, used to distribute budget leftovers, was seen as a successful and motivating way to provide recognition. The group discussed the idea of proposing this as a recurring, program-wide initiative to foster cross-workgroup recognition. It was noted that significant leftovers are becoming less common due to more constrained budgets, but the principle of the game is still valuable.
Decision Items:
The workgroup will formally suggest making the "Happy Money Game" a regular event for the entire Ambassador Program.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Tevo and Alfred will present this idea during the November Workgroup Sync call. [assignee] Tevo, Alfred Itodele [due] 21 November 2025 [status] todo
Agenda item 6 - Next Steps, Roadmap & Future of the Workgroup - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Effiom raised the strategic point that a key goal for the workgroup should be migrating all other workgroups from Dework to GitHub to fully leverage the new automated systems. The group acknowledged that the core development of the Treasury System is maturing, and the workgroup's focus might shift from building new features to support, training, and driving adoption across the program. There was a forward-looking discussion about setting a one-year plan and potentially pausing the workgroup's regular meetings until new development needs arise, shifting its budget and time towards training sessions within other workgroups' meetings.
Wednesday 8th October 2025
Research and Development Guild
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, Tevo, PeterE, Esther Galfalvi, Alfred Itodele, Jeffrey Ndarake, kenichi, Leandro Gavidi
Purpose: R&D Updates and Discussions
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, Event Scheduling and Notification System / Enhancing Calendar Integration with Custom Access, Enhancing Search Engine Optimization for the Ambassadors Program, AI-Agent @CoreContributor / Human-AI Powered Collaboration for Ambassadors.
Deployment of an AI agent for the BNB hack and ongoing proposals for Cudos
AOB Open discussions: Operations moving forward, identify and establish priorities, New proposals system redesign, Onboarding Devs
Discussion Points:
AI Tool Development and Collaboration Strategies Guillermo discussed the roadmap for developing AI tools using the ASI stack, emphasizing the need for collaboration and resource sharing within the ecosystem. They highlighted the importance of cognitive capacities and ethical considerations in defining the AI's personality. The conversation also touched on the necessity of organizing ideas and prioritizing tasks to build a comprehensive framework for AI assistance.
Data Integration and AI Assistant Development Tevo Kask and Guillermo focused on the integration of data sources into a machine-readable format for the AI assistant. They highlighted the need for contextual training to ensure the AI can effectively assist with governance decisions within the Ambassador Program. Esther Galfalvi raised questions about the expected interactions with the AI assistant, while Vani pointed out the necessity of including relevant historical context to improve decision-making. Guillermo highlighted their significant usage of the AI assistant, with nearly a thousand interactions recorded since its launch. Vani questioned the method of counting these interactions, seeking clarity on whether they referred to individual chats or posts. The discussion also touched on the importance of having a disclaimer for deeper analysis of the AI assistant's conversations.
Data Privacy and Ethics Discussion Esther and Vani engaged in a discussion about the implications of data privacy and consent in their community. Vani argued that the focus should be on data privacy rather than AI ethics, expressing concerns about the potential for misuse of data. Guillermo recognized the importance of establishing a clear consent process and the need for transparency regarding data usage, while also noting the difficulties in managing individual consent in a small community. Guillermo highlighted the benefits of increased transparency in their reporting processes, noting that visibility encourages better attention to detail and accountability. Vani questioned the distinction between past and current reporting practices, suggesting that visibility has always existed. Esther proposed that the formalization of reports might enhance their perceived immutability.
Action Items:
[action] Kenichi to share a visual presentation highlighting the progress updates on the R&D Channel [assignee] kenichi [due] 1 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy will follow up with the writers workgroup & marketing guild regarding the SEO training feedback. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 1 October 2025 [status] done
[action] Lordkizzy will reach out to the social media managers from both the video workgroup and writers workgroup to discuss the SEO audit report and necessary changes [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 1 October 2025 [status] done
[action] Guillermo to share the summary of the BNB hackaton deployment on the Ambassadors General channel. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 1 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani to create a document for community discussion regarding the foundational prompt for the AI agent. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 1 October 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Guillermo will follow up with Rems to set up a call regarding the UI design and integration. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 1 October 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Proposals, Governance Dashboard, Status update, AI Agent, Hackathon
emotions: Understanding., Satisfaction , Lengthy
Thursday 9th October 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: LadyTempestt [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron, Alfred Itodele, PeterE, omolola lawson, Sucre n Spice, UKnowZork, Kateri, esewilliams, Évéline Trinité
Purpose: Regular weekly Open Governance meeting. This session was the quarterly retrospective of the budget consent process.
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Not many people gave their opinions during the meeting.
At Guillermo's request, we added an extra section to the Miro board, to collect feedback about the Governance Dashboard specifically.
Key points raised:
Participation and quorum
Participation was good eventually, at 31% of core contributors (only just below all-time high of 33% from last Quarter), but we noted that people had to be chased, and participation initially was so low that the closing date had to be extended because only 6 WGs had met the quorum.
Some felt that the quorum was problematic ("quorum felt useless, pushing people just to get the numbers aligned with our own %")
Others felt it was still useful ("We have always had to chase people to participate anyway - at least the quorum ensures we do keep chasing till a reasonable number take part. Many people I DM'ed said they had otheriwse been unaware the consent round was happening"
and there was a suggestion: "leave the "chasing people to take part" to the Workgroups?"
80/20% rule Everyone who commented raised concerns about the 80/20% rule (the idea that a WG's budget should not be blocked by one or two objections, so will pass if no more than 20% of those who take part are objecting to it.) Points raised included
"80/20 rule might need revisiting, some objections felt reassonable but didnt impact bc it passed anyway"
"Either bring back the 2nd round, or reconsider 80/20 rule - is 20% threshold too high?"
"the 80/20 was not effective"
"80/20% rule feels like people used it to get away with a lot of irregularities in their budgets and reports"
"lots of proposals were passed only because of 80/20% rule."
Accountability and responses to objections Although some felt that actual reporting per se had improved compared to last quarter, concerns were raised about how accountable WGs are in the event that an objection is raised (some connected this with the 80/20% rule):
"people were not accountable enough and didn't respond to objections enough - because of 80/20 rule?"
"responses to objections couldve been more complete and more timely"
"back and forth with WGs - most WGs were not fully accountable" However, another opinion said
"Objections discussion (in Gov Calls) was a good one"
Some felt that the follow-up process will be important - how will we track whether WGs have implemented suggestions?
"Off the actual followup of the lessons learned is where the magic happens, looking forward to that" but some felt that this accountability should come before budgets are awarded:
"make people more accountable before they get their budget, and address objections"
The consent process overall Several people were unhappy with the current process:
"I feel like over exhausted from reporting and promoposing (but working on that) the quarterly iterations are too quick for small amount of funds, almost all the funds go to write a report about writing a report xD"
"It still takes a lot of time to read reports and budgets properly."
"I think we have explored this consent process method enough and we need to look another way to approve budget proposals."
"The process has now completely morphed into a vote, and "consent decisionmaking" has been entirely abandoned, but without any discussion or agreement. This isn't great process imo."
"the problem is not the ideas, the rules, the tools, etc whatever methodologies we come up with but instead our behaviour and attitudes towards is so we need to sit down and actually question ourselves."
Suggested solutions included:
Consider a whole different decison process
Appoint (and pay) a small group of "objectors" to read everything thoroughly and identify objections, and everyone else can agree or not, and/or can raise additional objections if they want
Either officially discuss and decide to move to a majority vote process, or make the Dashboard into a Consent tool
"need better metrics for how/why a proposal would pass"
The Dashboard Most people liked the Dashboard overall, and felt that for a first iteration, it had worked well. People found it easier to use than the old process, and particularly liked the idea of discussion and WGs responding to what was being said/asked, although it was recognised that this didn't happen enough in this round and could be promoted more.
Suggestions for changes were mostly minor:
"disclose names of those who consent or abstain, not just objections"
"more attention should be placed on User experience"
"fiddly to get to proposals, if you press Back button it takes you to top of page rather than where you were"
"we need a search box (ctrl-F doesn't work on a phone)"
A more major objection - the design of the tool had moved us from consent decisionmaking to majority voting without any discussion or agreement ("In short, we've let the design of our tooling shape/dictate our governance process. It should be the other way round.") and said that "this is not just about calling it a "vote" - it's also about the whole structure and layout of the dashbaord's "consent/object" section, which completely reinforces the idea that it's a vote." The suggestion here was either to redesign the dashboard as a consent tool, or discuss and agree to move to majority voting as our decision method.
Ethics of the AI assistant One ethical issue was raised about the use of the AI Assistant in the Dashboard: "Using an untrained and un- contextualised chatbot, and encouraging people to base their decisions on it, is ethically questionable imo -and also not very effective :-)"
Discussion Points:
Participation and quorum
80/20% rule
Accountability and responses to objections
The consent process
The Governance dashboard
Ethics of the AI assistant
Action Items:
[action] Vani will add the issues raised to the GovWG rolling agenda for proper discussion, in time for the next GovWG session, which will be agenda planning [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 14 October 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: accountability, Governance Dashboard, AI Assistant, ethics of chatbots, Participation in governance, quorum, 80/20% rule, Issue tracking, WG responses to objections, Small group of "objectors, exhaustion, improved reporting, quarterly process is too fast, consent decisionmaking, decision-making methodologies, majority vote decisionmaking
emotions: slow, quiet, Only a few of those present spoke, incisive, thoughtful
African Guild
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Duke [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Sucre n Spice, esewilliams, Alfred Itodele, CJFrankie, Jeffrey Ndarake, Omolola Lawson, Duke, UKnowZork
Purpose: Bi-weekly Meetings of the African Guild
Working Docs:
Narrative:
The meeting began with Duke noting that a Google Form had been shared earlier but had received no engagement. He suggested that everyone fill out the form live during the call to save time and help define the guild’s direction for the quarter. Duke emphasized that without input from team members, delegation and planning could not progress. He then asked SucrenSpice to share the form so participants could complete it in real time rather than postponing it again.
SucrenSpice expressed frustration that no one besides her had completed the form, calling it disappointing given the enthusiasm from the previous meeting. Duke acknowledged her concern and mentioned his network limitations, agreeing that completing the form together would be more efficient. Once SucrenSpice shared the link, Duke encouraged everyone to take five minutes to fill it out so they could gather data to guide their ideas.
As participants worked on the form, ESE requested clarification about the “Lean Guild Challenge,” noting that she hadn’t fully understood it before. Duke explained that it was a smaller-scale version of last year’s creative contests, designed to generate engagement and publicity with limited funds. He described it as a community-driven challenge open to creative proposals, where members would submit, vote, and reward winning ideas. SucrenSpice added that the entire guild would then collaborate to execute the chosen idea, distributing roles accordingly.
After collecting some responses, SucrenSpice read out the submitted ideas. Suggestions included:
Gartic Games – A drawing and guessing game inspired by SingularityNET themes.
AI Writing Challenge – A social media challenge focused on AI and Singularity Africa, with engagement-based rewards.
Digital Handshake & Story Map – Members pin their locations on a shared map and write one sentence about their connection to Africa (“My Africa is…”).
Problem and Possibility Seed Bank – Members share one local problem and one potential solution, creating a pool of future project ideas.
Six-Word SNET Story – Participants summarize their vision for Africa or SingularityNET in six words, with recognition for the most creative entries.
SNET Impact Challenge (#StickTheChange) – A social media movement where participants showcase how they’re using AI or community action to make a difference in Africa. The campaign would include regional leaderboards, weekly highlights, and rewards for impactful contributions.
As the guild reviewed the ideas, participants discussed creating short labels and descriptions to simplify the voting process. A quick poll was conducted, and ESE’s Impact Challenge received six votes, emerging as the winning concept. Duke asked ESE to document the idea clearly and share it soon so execution could begin, noting the short two-month quarter and limited meeting schedule. ESE agreed to draft the document, initially proposing next week, but SucrenSpice and Duke encouraged an earlier deadline—preferably Monday. ESE later confirmed she would share a preliminary version soon, even if brief.
Toward the end of the meeting, SucrenSpice proposed running multiple projects concurrently—such as Twitter Spaces, Afro-storytelling video shorts, and other initiatives—to avoid delays and ensure all quarterly goals were met. Duke agreed, emphasizing that future meetings would focus on review and execution rather than ideation. He encouraged members to select specific roles or tasks they were interested in, stressing the importance of delegation moving forward.
To streamline coordination, SucrenSpice offered to create a shared project tracker listing ongoing and upcoming initiatives, including Talking Drum, physical meetups, newsletters, X Spaces, and videos, allowing members to indicate where they could contribute. Duke endorsed the idea, thanked everyone for their input, and reminded the team that the quarter was already underway—prompt action was critical.
The meeting concluded on a cooperative and motivated note, with Duke expressing appreciation to all present members for their participation and commitment.
Action Items:
[action] Ese to draft a detailed document outlining the SNET Impact Challenge [assignee] esewilliams [due] 22 October 2025 [status] in progress
[action] SucrenSpice to create a shared project tracker listing all ongoing and upcoming projects (Talking Drum, physical meetups, newsletters, X Spaces, Afro-storytelling videos) and share the tracker with guild members for them to indicate preferred roles or contributions. [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 16 October 2025 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Lean Guild Challenge, Content Initiatives, Impact challenge
emotions: informative, insightful, Collaborative, forward-looking, Friendly
Onboarding Workgroup
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Sucre n Spice [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron, CJFrankie, Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, Gorga Siagian, Maxmilez, LordKizzy, Omolola, Ayomi Shuga, martinsoki, Sucre n Spice, Kateri
Purpose: Regular monthly meeting of Onboarding WG
Working Docs:
In this meeting we discussed:
Assigning tasks for Q4
Anyone who is not yet a member of the Ambassador program GitHub organization should DM Sucre their GitHub username
Onboarders teams regular update meeting for this month will be held on the 14th, 9:00am UTC. For further discussion, it was acknowledged that members are free to step down from their positions if they wish.
Collaboration with Education Guild on an AMA session:
Sucre noted that she had chat with Slate of Education Guild, which he indicated strong support for the collaboration. The Idea is to invite representatives from ecosystem spinoffs (e.g. Deep Funding, SophiaVerse, Rejuve, Mind Children, Incantio, and Deep Noise) to engage with the Ambassador Program. The aim is to enable contributors to learn how to participate, contribute, and potentially earn within spinoffs, reinforcing the Ambassador Program’s role across the ecosystem. This quarter’s scope is limited to 3 spinoffs for focused outreach (Mind children, Incantio and Deep noise). It was decided that this engagement will take the form of an AMA session. Members agreed to prepare general questions aligned with the scope of invitation, while participants will have the opportunity to ask random questions towards the end of the session.
A.M.A session: The meeting concluded with members being assigned specific responsibilities to ensure the AMA session’s success. See issue https://github.com/SingularityNet-Ambassador-Program/Onboarding-Workgroup/issues/64
A budget of $90 from Onboarding Workgroup was set for the AMA session. The Education Guild agreed to contribute $50 toward the cost but the overall cost went slightly above the initial budget and so we agreed to find a way and cover it.
Decision Items:
October 14th confirmed as the first onboarders group session this quarter; other dates pending confirmation.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
The date of the next focus group session will be decided Async
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] CJ Frankie to document November meeting [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 6 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Zork to document December meeting [assignee] UKnowZork [due] 11 December 2025 [status] todo
[action] CJ Frankie to draft the Q4 quarterly report [assignee] CJFrankie [status] todo
[action] Onboarders team to meet on the 14th Oct [assignee] CJFrankie, CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Sucre n Spice, LordKizzy, Gorga Siagian [due] 14 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Sucre to approach Peter to find out how to reach the new spinoffs. [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 16 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] CJ Frankie to approach Rejuve AI about an AMA, and Kateri and Gorga to contact the other suggested spinoffs [assignee] CJFrankie, Kateri, Gorga Siagian [status] todo
[action] Ayomi to create the form for people to submit questions, and the slides (put each question on a slide) for the A.M.A session [assignee] Ayomi Shuga [due] 31 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Gorga to create infographic to promote for the A.M.A session [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 31 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to create the video edit for the A.M.A session [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 27 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] CJ Frankie to document the the A.M.A session [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 27 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kateri to publicize the A.M.A session [assignee] Kateri [due] 27 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Love and Vani to Facilitate the the A.M.A session [assignee] LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron [due] 27 November 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: collab with education, spinoffs, AMA session, Mind childern, Deep Funding, Documentation, Q4 quarterly report, Rejuve AI
emotions: Friendly, Collaborative
Friday 10th October 2025
Marketing Guild
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], advanceameyaw, Gorga Siagian, Kateri, esewilliams
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting
Discussion Points:
Updates and Introductions: LordKizzy opened the Marketing Guild call by welcoming members and outlined the agenda.
The discussion focused on the scavenger hunt initiative, with Gorga Siagian proposing a division of responsibilities between teams managing Discord and social media. LordKizzy expressed concern over podcast delays impacting team updates and emphasized the urgency of executing the scavenger hunt within the limited timeframe. The team agreed to prioritize the initiative for the quarter and ensure updated reports reflect its current progress.
Ese Williams and LordKizzy outlined a social media strategy aimed at increasing engagement before December, emphasizing collaboration and addressing ongoing bot integration challenges. Gorga highlighted budget constraints related to equipment costs, leading to a discussion on potential cost-effective alternatives.
Advanceameyaw provided updates on bot integration, noting a delay caused by a declined purchase transaction. The team acknowledged low social media engagement and discussed leveraging personal networks and incentives to boost participation. Ese suggested hosting live Q&A sessions to attract and engage potential participants.
Although the timeline for upcoming initiatives remained uncertain, advanceameyaw confirmed that preparations would begin immediately, with a sprint planned for the end of October. LordKizzy stressed the need for a coordination call with Eric to finalize the schedule and prepare materials, targeting readiness before the first week of December. The team also underscored the importance of producing engaging content, with LordKizzy proposing to share updates on Popplus to involve more interested participants in the planning process.
Action Items:
[action] LordKizzy to edit the report and include reasons for the scavenger hunt initiative and ensure all details are in place [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 24 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to drop a message in the channel to remind everyone about the need to meet and have a call regarding the scavenger hunt initiative. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 24 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] LordKizzy to organize a call with Eric to finalize the timeline and budget for the scavenger hunt initiative. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 24 October 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Podcast Intiative, Scavenger hunt
emotions: Peacefull, Understanding., forward-looking
Video Workgroup
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], hogantuso [documenter], LordKizzy, hogantuso, devon, Malik, killy, Zalfred, Slate, oep, AndrewBen
Purpose: MONTHLY TASK DISTRIBUTION
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
As part of the overall strategy, the workgroup is coordinating preparations for the BGI-25 virtual unconference on 23rd October. Specific tasks have been assigned to members to ensure a streamlined and efficient process for the creation and production of short clips and long form videos for posting.
Decision Items:
Members assigned to designated tasks agreed to send out their deliverables for BGI-25 in less than two weeks after the event. This ensures timely progress and alignment with the BGI=25 objectives.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Creation of a template for BGI-25 shorts [assignee] AndrewBen [due] 6 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] BGI Long Video Edits 1 [assignee] Malik [due] 6 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] BGI Long Video Edits 2 [assignee] killy [due] 6 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Task Manager [assignee] devon [due] 10 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Meeting Documenting [assignee] hogantuso [due] 10 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] BGI-25 short [assignee] hogantuso [due] 6 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Andrew is to reach out to Peter for the X logins for posting. [assignee] AndrewBen [due] 17 October 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Workgroup Dynamics, BGI-25 Virtual Unconference, task assignment
emotions: Collaborative
Last updated