Week 36
Mon 1st Sep - Sun 7th Sep 2025
Monday 1st September 2025
AI Ethics WG
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, AshleyDawn, Clement Umoh, Alfred Itodele, Sucre n Spice, advanceameyaw, barnabas, Grandi, Jeffrey Ndarake, Maxmilez, Rems
Purpose: Monthly meeting of the AI Ethics Workgroup
Narrative:
Discussion Points: This is our last meeting of the quarter(Q3)! The call opened with updates on payments, noting that several completed tasks are still waiting because of the low AGIX token price. Everyone was reminded that contributors will be paid by the end of the quarter regardless, with the admin team covering the shortfall if needed. Documentation for this meeting was assigned to Zork, with the reminder that it should be completed and submitted by September 7. When we reviewed the Github board, a question came up about whether anything should be raised in the upcoming workgroup sync call. Nobody had urgent items, but it was agreed that the BGI Nexus survey should continue to be highlighted. A discussion followed on possible involvement at BGI25 in Istanbul. Ideas included hosting a virtual event beforehand to showcase the research interviews, transcriptions, and survey data. Vani mentioned that more clarity would come after a check-in with Esther and Hayley later in the week. On the community engagement side, Vani mentioned that Colleen’s “Redefining Intelligence” session had technical glitches but was successfully repeated in the AI Sandbox. A recording and slides will be shared and a new participant, Julian, has also suggested topics and may become involved in the future. Sucre gave an update on internal management: the project board is organized, the Q4 budget draft has been prepared, and the quarterly report is underway. Payments are still delayed by token price, but there’s hope that some will be processed by Thursday. The MOOC study group on AI ethics was briefly revisited, but the feeling was that workloads are too heavy now. The idea will be reassessed in the October meeting. We checked the progress on transcripts. Vani noted that Q2 transcript checking is still ongoing but close to completion, while Q3 transcripts are partially done. The backlog remains a priority. In connection with BGI25, we talked about how the workgroup might contribute, perhaps through a roundtable or presentation tied to ongoing research. Everyone was invited to suggest subtopics or relevant topics before the Thursday meeting with Esther and Hayley. The budget review prompted discussion on necessary cuts. Documentation payments were reduced to $20, co-chair to $250, and management roles to $150. Only three new interviews are planned for Q4 (alongside Jeffrey’s completed one), with most of the budget going toward 14 transcriptions. Other allocations included transcript checking, two trial research write-ups, possible grounded theory coding, Colleen’s monthly events, and a contingency fund. AI Ethics WG budget: Quarter 4 2025 Members then exchanged views on who wanted to take on tasks. Zork, Clement, Grandi, and Advance confirmed willingness to do transcriptions. Alfred, MaxMilez, Zork, and Rems offered to handle interviews. We agreed to finalize preferences by commenting directly on the draft budget sheet. There was clarification around grounded theory coding that was stated in the Q4 budget analysis: it refers to qualitative data analysis, not programming. The idea is to treat it as a learning opportunity, possibly unpaid unless strong interest develops.
Decision Items:
Q4 Budget Focus: We agreed to cut costs across most roles and make transcription the main priority, budgeting for 14 transcriptions (new and backlog) while limiting new interviews to three (plus Jeffrey’s completed one).
[rationale] We felt it made more sense to slow down on new interviews and put our energy into finishing the backlog transcriptions giving lasting value and make sure the work we’ve already done doesn’t just sit unused. By capping new interviews to just three, plus Jeffrey’s completed one, we can still bring in some fresh perspectives without stretching the budget or creating another pile of unfinished work.
Completed tasks will be paid by the end of Q3 even if token price remains below target, with the admin team covering any shortfall.
[rationale] We agreed it wouldn’t be fair to leave people waiting on payments just because the token price is down. Since the work is already done, it should be honored. That’s why the admin team will cover any shortfall — it keeps things fair, shows people their effort is valued, and helps keep motivation strong for future tasks.
Action Items:
[action] Vani to meet with Esther & Hayley on Sept 4 to clarify BGI25 Istanbul involvement (virtual event, roundtable, research showcase). [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 4 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Sucre to Finalize and submit Q4 budget by Sept 15; continue preparing quarterly report. [assignee] Sucre n Spice [due] 15 September 2025 [status] in progress
[action] All members are to comment in the draft budget sheet indicating willingness to take on transcriptions or interviews. [status] in progress
[action] Vani to complete Q2 transcript checking and progress Q3 transcripts by end of quarter. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [status] in progress
[action] All members are to revisit interest in the MOOC study group and to consider alternative formats. [status] todo
[action] Vani to post more info on grounded theory coding in Discord to gauge member interest. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 15 September 2025 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: AI Ethics MOOC Study group, Interview Transcription, Interviews, budget management, deadlines, grounded theory coding, BGI25 Istanbul, Q4 budget, AGIX rate, Q3 quarterly report, transcript checking.
emotions: collaborative, deliberative, forward-looking
Tuesday 2nd September 2025
Treasury Automation WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Alfred Itodele [documenter], Tevo, Alfred Itodele, Jeffrey Ndarake, Effiom, Kateri
Purpose: We develop the Treasury System
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Working Docs:
Agenda item 1 - Onboarding, Open questions, & Development Updates Discussion Points - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Alfred inquired about the distinction between the Treasury Guild (TG) and the Treasury Automation Workgroup (TAWG). Tevo clarified that TG focuses on service operations like validating contributions and making on-chain transactions, while TAWG is the community-facing group that steers the development of the treasury tools themselves. Tevo presented development updates from August,including the integration of an AI co-pilot into the Treasury Manager for more effective feature development and debugging. Find the recorded session hereTreasury Automation WG - 02.09.25 Development Updates A new, more modular codebase is being used, which will allow for easier distribution of treasury tools and features across different projects and networks. Regression testing has been completed on the new version of the Treasury Manager to ensure stability before its upcoming deployment. Updates to the Zoom integration were discussed, noting that some manual verification is still required due to API limitations, but the time cost is minimal. Tevo shared the video recording of the End-to-End Treasury Operation Session for members interested in the full operational process. Shared other updates related to 3 different proposals created in the Cardano Ecosystem where Treasury System would be used: Proposal: Multi‑Agent Integration Platform Proposal: Open Proposal Platform for Decentralised Organisations Cardano-Constitutional-Debt-Workstreams-Proposal
Decision Items:
The Discord integration feature is now ready for workgroups to be onboarded. Reassigned Aflred to Discord Bot onboarding task (removed UknowZork due to already on an extensive task)
Action Items:
[action] Alfred to Create onboarding document for Discord Voice Channel features (for both operator and workgroup lead) Contact Workgroup leads that use the Discord Voice channel for meetings and ask if they are interested to setup the recognition process. [status] todo
Agenda item 2 - Workgroup Management & Task Assignment Discussion Points - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
The workgroup's GitHub project board was reviewed to assess the status of ongoing tasks. A new task was created to document the Discord integration feature, including a user guide for facilitators on how to register and describe the process. The roles for the current meeting's summary were discussed and assigned.
Action Items:
[action] Alfred to create the user guide for the Discord integration feature. DUE: End of Week Jeffrey to complete the draft of this meeting summary. DUE: Within 3 days Alfred to review, edit, and publish the final meeting summary. DUE: Within 3 days [status] todo
Agenda item 3 - Q3 Reports & Q4 Proposals Finalization Discussion Points - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
The Q3 Progress Reports for both TAWG and Treasury Guild were reviewed. The Q4 budget for TAWG remains capped at 2,868 Agix. A live poll was conducted to decide which new development features to prioritize for the quarter. The options presented were: Manage GitHub Panel, Treasury Operator UX Updates, Google Meet Integration, live coding session and Automated GitHub Task Status Changes.
Decision Items:
The Q4 Proposal for the Treasury Guild was confirmed, with the primary change being a return to a weekly treasury service cadence. Based on the live poll, the workgroup decided to prioritize funding for two features in the Q4 budget: Treasury UX updates and Automated GitHub task status changes. The other proposed features will be removed from the Q4 budget to stay within the cap.
Action Items:
[action] All Ambassador Program members are encouraged to add their feedback to the "Community Engagement" section of the Q3 Progress Report. Tevo to update the Q4 TAWG Proposal document to reflect the features chosen in the poll For future session research and discuss What are calculated into the Swarm Treasury Fees? [status] todo
Agenda item 4 - Bonus Reward Distribution Plan Discussion Points - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
The workgroup has a surplus of 1,586 AGIX to distribute as bonus rewards. Happy Money Game like distribution model was proposed, a collaborative and transparent method for distribution. Members will allocate percentages of the total reward pool to their chosen nominees and provide a brief justification. The final distribution will be based on the average allocations from all participants agreed by Treasury Guild members.
Decision Items:
The workgroup continues Bonus Reward discussion asynchronously.
Action Items:
[action] Tevo to create and share the bonus reward distribution sheet in Discord. All interested members to fill out the sheet with their allocation suggestions. DUE: End of Week (Friday) [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Discord, Treasury Manager, Treasury System, Proposal, Report
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: osmium [facilitator], devon [documenter], Gorga Siagian, esewilliams, Xalfred, frosh, osmium
Purpose: To review progress on the CCCP extension and governance webinars, and to ideate on launching a new ASI Academy aligned with the SingularityNET ecosystem's educational goals.
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
ASI Academy Proposal
The idea of an “ASI Academy” was introduced primarily by Osmium, based on an original proposal by David Taylor, former Chief Marketing Officer at Cardano. Osmium emphasized that the academy should be more than a general course — it should be a strategic, ecosystem-aligned educational platform for the ASI alliance (SingularityNET, Fetch.ai, Ocean Protocol). He suggested using the Cardano Academy as a case study, drawing parallels to successful educational systems in decentralized ecosystems. The ASI Academy could integrate lessons and structures from CCP, AI for Beginners, and previous Ambassador projects, with a more refined focus on decentralized AI and internal technologies like ASI Cloud, ASI Infrastructure, and spin-offs. The discussion highlighted the need for a dedicated course that aligns with SingularityNET’s evolving direction. everyone supported the idea, and a working group will be formed for this.
Governance Webinars Update
Osmium provided a comprehensive update on the governance education series. The team now has two presentations developed — an expansion from the original single presentation model. The governance module has faced delays due to evolving governance systems, which could create confusion among participants if rolled out prematurely. To address this, Osmium shared that the structure now includes a series of five webinars, one of which will be an interactive Mentimeter workshop, and another focusing on decision-making tools and methodologies. A complete blueprint document is being prepared to outline the roadmap, and announcements for the webinars will be released soon. Osmium encouraged participants to refer to the document to understand the updated structure and educational goals.
CCCP Extension Progress
Gorga led the update on the CCCP (Core Contributor Certification Program) extension. He created a spreadsheet assigning tasks to content creators and assessors, which he shared in the chat. One of the key issues raised was the limited number of content creators compared to the volume of work, leading to Lord Kizzy being assigned two spin-off video tasks. Osmium requested to take over the Sentience video from Kizzy, subject to Kizzy’s approval. Gorga was open to the reassignment, but emphasized the need for proper agreement. There was also some confusion regarding which spin-offs are active or already documented. A final decision was made to replace the ASI general video with Sentience.
AI Intermediate Course Proposal
Building on the AI for Beginners course, Osmium proposed the creation of a follow-up course, possibly titled AI Intermediate or Foundations. This initiative aims to transition from broad, entry-level AI education to SingularityNET-aligned content focused on the ASI ecosystem. Osmium noted that the prior course didn’t generate sustained engagement from external audiences, and therefore the next phase should target the existing loyal community. He suggested reviewing the feedback from the AI for Beginners course to inform future content and structure. The topics are to include current ecosystem priorities such as ASI infrastructure, ASI Cloud, and decentralized AI practices. Gorga and others agreed to carry the idea forward into next quarter’s proposal planning.
Website Options for ASI Academy
The need for a dedicated website to host ASI Academy content sparked a thoughtful discussion between Osmium and Gorga. They explored three options: 1) building on Slate’s existing LMS-style platform, 2) expanding the Ambassador Wiki site, and 3) integrating directly into the SingularityNET Ambassador Program site. Osmium advised that no web development should start until they have confirmed alignment with the Foundation, to avoid redundant efforts like in previous site-building attempts. Once foundational support is secured, the working group will draft a blueprint and roadmap outlining site architecture, content flow, and integration strategies. Osmium also considered involving David Taylor as an advisor, given his original vision for the academy and experience in educational platform development.
Decision Items:
Sentience will replace ASI video in spin-off tasks.
[rationale] ASi is the main project, not a spinoff
Action Items:
[action] Quarterly Report - Q3 2025 [assignee] UKnowZork [due] 16 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Form ASI Academy working group and set up asynchronous collaboration [assignee] osmium [due] 16 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Budget planning [due] 16 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Share proposals (ASI Academy, AI Intermediate) in next proposal round [assignee] osmium [due] 16 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Create a case study or report on AI for Beginners course [status] todo
[action] Osmium to reach out to kizzy for video reassignment [assignee] osmium [due] 16 September 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: ASI Academy, Governance Module, Spin-off Videos, Proposal Planning, CCCP extension, Governance series, Q4 2025 budget, Q3 2025 quarterly report
emotions: Collaborative, forward-looking, informative
Research and Development Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], guillermolucero, LordKizzy, Jeffrey Ndarake
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.
Address concerns; Gov-Dash / SingularityNET Ambassadors Governance Framework.
AOB Open discussions: Operations moving forward, identify and establish priorities, New proposals system redesign, Onboarding Devs
Discussion Points:
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Event Scheduling and Notification System / Enhancing Calendar Integration with Custom Access: Guillermo and Lordkizzy addressed the ongoing development of the event scheduling system, expressing concerns over the lack of updates from Tevo's team. They agreed on the necessity of setting a deadline for the project to ensure progress and discussed the importance of onboarding new developers to mitigate future challenges. The conversation also touched on the potential integration of governance tools for decision-making.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Enhancing Search Engine Optimization for the Ambassadors Program; Lordkizzy reported that the SEO handbook and final report are complete, and training has been conducted with the video workgroup. He plans to reach out to the writers, marketing, and education workgroups for further training sessions. Lordkizzy also highlighted the importance of ensuring that social media managers are aligned with the new guidelines to achieve clear outcomes. Guillermo discussed the necessity of translating research into practical applications that add value, rather than merely engaging in political processes. he pointed out that past initiatives, such as inclusive research, have not been effectively implemented, which undermines their potential impact. The group stressed the importance of focusing on onboarding and education to ensure that marketing strategies are effectively utilized. Guillermo emphasized the importance of coordination in their upcoming workgroup sync call, particularly regarding video marketing and education initiatives.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance AI Agents: Guillermo shared progress on a governance agent developed for a hackathon, which has been deployed and tested within their governance framework. The team aims to reshape this agent for further integration and testing. Guillermo discussed their successful hackathon experiences, where they built an MVP and a website in less than 48 hours, integrating Ocean Protocol and Filecoin. They noted the need for better marketing and communication to leverage these achievements and attract more developers. He also highlighted the importance of creating educational materials to share their processes and insights.
@CC Agent / Governance Agent Reaserch Phase #1 Nextgen Agents Hackathon https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/nextgen-agents/detail Reaserch Phase: Agent integration with ICP governance framework. Nextgen Hack Links and details https://dorahacks.io/buidl/31544
Agente Build Link > https://agentverse.ai/agents/details/agent1qt378ffm3572qgegcdlkyjapzu8hxw3na7mwjakdfz9w24sm6jx92uspta6/profile
Aleph Hack / Share and showcase Result from LatAm Participation. Objective, strategic outreach, onboading and fueling regional adoption of ASI Stack. Target new collaborations and participation in Hacks throught Q4.
Aleph Hack Links and details https://dorahacks.io/hackathon/aleph-hackathon/buidl MVP Build > https://v0-transport-latam-app.vercel.app/
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard: Guillermo provided an update on the Gov Dash project, highlighting its recent deployment on GitHub. They noted a shift in focus to simplify the tool by incorporating necessary features like timelines, links, and budget tracking, while ensuring that all guild members can collaborate on the report through Google Docs. The team is also working on refining the user interface and addressing feedback from previous iterations. Guillermo are developing a video tutorial to assist users in creating proposals, which will include closed captions and links to a kit book. Lordkizzy raised a question about distinguishing between different types of reports, prompting a discussion on the use of labels and tables to categorize proposals effectively. The team is focused on improving mobile functionality and simplifying the proposal process.
Action Items:
[action] Guillermo Lucero will schedule a call with Tevo to discuss the integration of the Governance dashboard with the treasury [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 17 September 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Kenichi to share a visual presentation highlighting the progress updates on the R&D Channel [assignee] kenichi [due] 10 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Tevo will write the proposal for Project Catalyst, focusing on the onboarding agent and platform integrations, before the deadline on the 18th. [assignee] Tevo [due] 20 August 2025 [status] done
[action] Lordkizzy will follow up with the writers workgroup & marketing guild regarding the SEO training feedback. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 10 September 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: CSDB, Proposals, SEO, Governance Dashboard, Status update, Project Management, Project catalyst
emotions: Understanding., Satisfaction , Lengthy
Thursday 4th September 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Alfred Itodele [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, guillermolucero, Kateri, CallyFromAuron, Jeffrey Ndarake, LordKizzy, martinsoki, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Maxmilez
Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting
Narrative:
We checked the rolling agenda and agreed on discussion topics for sessions that did not yet have a topic assigned.
Vani brought up a recent Discord discussion about Tevo’s difficulty managing payments outside the quarterly allocation, stressing the need for a clearer system to track and confirm agreements each quarter. She also mentioned Tevo’s new GitHub integration, which could reduce reliance on Dework.
Guillermo walked us through the governance dashboard tool. He emphasized functionality and mobile usability over styling, showing how proposals would be created by copying reports from Google Docs to keep workflows open and flexible. He demonstrated how budgets and links would be added, how proposals would appear, and how the consent/objection process would work
Improvements suggested:
"consent" not "voting"
displaying document titles instead of raw links
We discussed how the dashboard will handle the second round consent process.
We discussed what analytics should be tracked: see Guillermo's analytics doc. Suggestions included:
participation patterns
number of abstentions
how often particular objections recur for a WG over time (would need input of historic data, and is therefore something for a 2nd iteration rather than something that can be implemented immediately
demographics (but with a caution that the Dashboard only collects data about country and language, and only if the user chooses to add that to their profile, so data might not be very complete; also, there are many kinds of diversity (sex? sexuality? disability? etc) that we're not collecting any data on, and probably wouldn't due to privacy concerns; so we should be wary of thinking that just "country" and "language" cover all the exclusions and barriers that people face.)
Alfred asked about dashboard formatting, and Guillermo explained that Google Docs would remain the main space for editing before content is imported into the tool.
We noted that the Dashboard makes the consent process non-anonymous; Guillermo noted that other forms of opinion gathering, such as sentiment surveys like the recent one in July/August, can also be used in future to supplement the consent process, and would almost certainly be anonymous.
We noted that the development team will be producing "how-to" materials such as walkthru videos, and agreed that GovWG will help to share them.
Decision Items:
We agreed to help share future tutorials and guides that the Dashboard team might create,
[rationale] to help contributors use the governance dashboard and lower barriers to participation.
Action Items:
[action] Guillermo to make some suggested improvements to the governance dashboard UX (e.g. display document titles instead of raw links, change "vote" to "consent") [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 8 September 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Vani to check and confirm what the agreed quorum is [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 5 September 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Vani to review the analytics Tevo used in previous consent rounds, and add any useful ideas from that into Guillermo’s analytics document [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 5 September 2025 [status] in progress
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: WG reserves, Q4 2025 budget, Governance Dashboard, Consent process, consent vs voting, Anonymity, transparency, Core Contributors , Analytics, KPIs, Engagement
emotions: Collaborative, quiet, forward-looking, insightful
AI Sandbox/Think-tank
Type of meeting: Think-Tank
Present: osmium [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], Gorga Siagian, advanceameyaw, UKnowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, martinsoki, Alfred Itodele, Santos, LordKizzy
Purpose: Weekly meeting on AI Think Tank discussion on "Should Artificial Intelligence be granted decision-making autonomy in governance and social systems?"
Working Docs:
In this meeting we discussed:
Ethical implications of granting decision making autonomy to artificial intelligence within governance and social systems: Vasu introduced concerns regarding ethical dimension, Can AI uphold fairness, transparency and accountability better than humans? Should AI follow strict ethical frameworks or evolve its own? Who is responsible when an AI-governed decision causes harm? Advanceameyaw argued that fairness, transparency, and accountability are inherently human duties rather than attributes that can be assigned to AI. Vasu supported this view, highlighting the importance of legitimate data and blockchain technology to ensure transparency in AI applications. Kateri noted that AI's judgment is influenced by the data it is fed, which can lead to biased outcomes.
On governance & power:
should AI have advisory roles only, or actual voting/policy-making powers? Could AI reduce corruption and bias in governance, or amplify hidden biases? Risks of centralized AI control vs. decentralized AI governance.
Lordkizzy argued that accountability for the misuse of AI should fall on the individual user rather than the companies that create AI frameworks. Gorga disagreed, stating that the responsibility lies with the humans and institutions that design and implement AI governance. Vasu added that transparency in AI models is crucial to prevent misuse and suggested that making AI open source could address some concerns.
Vasu discussed the potential role of his “EthosGuard” AI agent in governance, questioning whether such a system should be limited to providing policy recommendations or also empowered to make decisions. Advanceameyaw noted that the topic requires deeper contemplation, while Vasu emphasized the importance of recognizing the implications of AI’s reliance on human-designed algorithms and data.
Lordkizzy questioned the accountability of search engines like Google in relation to the misuse of information, using the example of bomb-making. He emphasized that before the advent of AI, individuals could still access harmful information and that the responsibility lies with the user rather than the provider. He noted that AI makes information more widely accessible, and misuse is a possibility that should be acknowledged.
Technological Feasibility: How advanced must AI systems be before they are entrusted with governance roles? Can current LLMs or multi-agent systems reason deeply enough for governance-level decision-making? What safeguards (explainability, audit trails, failsafes) are necessary?
Kateri expressed apprehension about granting AI authority in decision-making, suggesting its role should remain limited, to reduce potential risks. Jeffrey emphasized that the benefits and drawbacks of AI ultimately depend on how it is applied.
The meeting concluded before the discussion ended and was adjourned until the next meeting."
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: AI impact, EthosGuard, responsibility, AI decision-making, AI autonomy, accountability, AI in governance, AI ethics
emotions: Educative, Interactive, detailed, collaborative, educative
Onboarding Workgroup
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], LordKizzy, Gorga Siagian, CJFrankie, Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, Kateri, Ayomi Shuga, Chibuike Onyejiaka, Duke, Jeffrey Ndarake, LadyTempestt, CallyFromAuron
Purpose: Monthly Onboarding WG Meeting
Working Docs:
In this meeting we discussed:
Q3 2025 Quarterly Report:
CJ Frankie has nearly completed the report. Chsanges to reporting requirements for this Quarter: the report now needs to include
a clear statement of WG purpose (we already have this in previous reports)
a section on outcomes/impact (we will add info on collaboration with Education guild on the AMA session with Rejuve means more people understand SingularityNet as a whole; mentoring new people more extensively; and and encouraging new people to feel confident to ask questions to support their onboarding.
a reflection section on what could have gone better.
We have retained our usual section for WG members to give their own reflections on how they felt about this quarter - members were reminded to add anything they would like to say.
Deadline: 15th Sept.
Onboarders update:
The team, consisting of five onboarders plus Sucre, continue to welcome newcomers, answer questions, help direct people to suitable workgroups. They reviewed their tracker to check on progress: some participants were fully onboarded and active, others less so, and some have dropped off. The team plans to follow up with those who never fully onboarded but are still around, but hey noted that it is difficult to get "exit interview" information from those who have left completely, so we don't usually find out why they go.
New member Ayomi suggested introducing a feedback form at the end of each Onboarding WG meeting to gather input from participants and improve future sessions. The team agreed it was a great idea, so Ayomiu will draft a form and share it async.
Action Items:
[action] CjFrankie to make suggested updates on the Q3 quarterly report [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 10 September 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Ayomi to create the form for feedback from every meeting [assignee] Ayomi Shuga [due] 11 September 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q3 2025 quarterly reportt, onboarders team, exit interviews, Feedback Form
emotions: Collaborative, informative
Last updated