Week 38
Mon 15th Sep - Sun 21st Sep 2025
Monday 15th September 2025
WG Sync Call
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], Alfred Itodele, CallyFromAuron [documenter], Ayomishuga, Jeffrey Ndaraka, Rems, CallyFromAuron, PeterE, Tevo, AshleyDawn, Sucre n Spice, guillermolucero, AndrewBen, kenichi, UKnowZork, Alfred Itodele
Purpose: Monthly call for all Workgroups to discuss Program-wide issues
Agenda Items:
Changes to consent process timeline - specifically, one round of consent instead of two - to conform with the features of the new Governance dashboard
Integration of historical data into the Governance dashboard
Verifying the validity of objections
Use of the 80-20 rule in the new single-round consent process
Definition of consent decisionmaking
Discussion:
Change to consent process timeline
The new dashboard's commenting feature encourages people to comment on budgets and reports, and allows WGs to amend them in response. So the consent process cannot start until this process is finished, to prevent changes after consent is given. To accommodate this, a new timeline with a single consent round was agreed: see "decisions" below.
We noted that this does not mean the second round is removed forever.
2)Integration of historical data into the Governance dashboard
It would be useful to add past objections and other historical data into the new dashboard, as recurring issues are revealing. Migrating all data would be a significant effort. Could start with the most recent (Q2/3) data Could allocate a budget from Ambassador reserves for the task. To be discussed further in a future meeting.
Verifying the validity of objections
The proposed timeline includes a focus group to check if objections are valid before they are discussed in the Governance WG meeting. Alfred raised concerns about a small, unelected group making decisions and suggested representation from all workgroups to ensure fairness. But it was pointed out to him that the validity check does not involve "making decisions", but simply scanning for any potential invalidities, and the assessment is ratified or not in the Governance meeting. We agreed to make the validity check an open session where anyone can participate, rather than a pre-selected focus group. It was clarified that the role of this session is simply to check if an objection is valid, not to comment on how the objection should be resolved.
80-20% rule
In past consent rounds, this rule has been applied in the 2nd round, so that a single objection cannot hold up the process indefinitely. As we no longer have a 2nd round, the rule might be inapproriate, as it would silence minority objections before they could be discussed. We agreed all objections will be discussed; and the 80/20 rule will only be applied if agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
Definition of consent decisionmaking
In response to a question from Ayomi, the consent process was explained.
Consenting to a budget does not mean that you think it is perfect; just that it is "safe enough to try".
Objections should not be the objewctor's own ideas for how things could be done better - an objection must identify actual, specific harm that would be caused if a proposal was carried out.
The process then focuses on resolving objections by asking objectors what would need to change in order to get their consent.
Decision Items:
The group will adopt a single consent round for the Q4 budget process The budget approval timeline was revised and finalized as follows:
Weds 17th Sept, 23:59 UTC: Deadline for WGs to submit reports and budgets.
Mon 22nd Sept: End of commenting period; budgets are locked; consent process opens.
Weds 24th Sept: Deadline for Core Contributors to consent/object/abstain.
Thurs 25th Sept before Governance meeting: objection validity check session,
Thurs 25th Sept: Discussion in Governance WG
Tues 30th Sept: Discussion in Governance WG
[rationale] To test the new dashboard's commenting functionality and see if it is able to speed up the consent process.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
The meeting on Thurs 25th Sept to review objection validity will be an open session, and anyone who attends can participate.
It isn't a decision-making session - any "invalid" flags will be ratified in the Governance call.
[rationale] Inclusion and transparency.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
The 80/20 rule will not be automatically applied. All valid objections will be discussed, even if raised by only one person; and the 80/20 rule will only be applied if agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
[rationale] To avoid silencing minority objections
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] To ensure the dashboard backend allows for proposals to be locked on Sept 22nd, at which point the consent function becomes active. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 19 September 2025 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo and Lean to investigate adding a feature to the dashboard to track the resolution of each objection [assignee] guillermolucero, leandro [due] 30 September 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Governance Dashboard, Q4 2025 budget timeline, migrating historical data, validity of objections, Consent decision-making process for Budget proposals, 80%/20% rule, Consent process
emotions: Collaborative, Constructive, some skepticism, pragmatic
Wednesday 17th September 2025
Archives Workgroup
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Stephen [QADAO] [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], CallyFromAuron, Stephen [QADAO], PeterE, Alfred Itodele, AyomiShuga, UKnowZork, Rems
Purpose: Regular monthly meeting of the Archives WorkGroup in the SingularityNET Ambassador program
Meeting video: Link
Decision Items:
As token price remains comparatively low ($0.28), we still won't submit any pending Q1 tasks at the moment. However, we agreed that we should pay out at the start of October provided our WG reserves can cover it all (token price would need to be around $0.30).
[rationale] Even though paying out when token price is much lower (the Q1 budget was calculated at $0.55) will eat into the WG's reserves, nevertheless we agree it's not good practice to leave tasks unpaid for too long, regardless of token price
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Monthly archives GitBook issues: summaries are still being submitted without any chasing, although as previouly noted, there are fewer meetings happening in general.
But we noted that the ongoing issues with summary quality seem to be worsening - particularly, vague and meaningless content (e.g. "We made a decision on XYZ" without saying what the decision was), and over-focus of the idea of a "meeting narrative" leading to undue emphasis on inconsequential details, and failure to record actual decisions.
We noted that this might need to be addressed eventually if the corpus is not to become irretrievably corrupt. However, we need to see the results of our knowledge graphs to fully assess the extent of the problem - can a graph derive meaningful and accurate insights despite inadequate summaries?
[rationale] This is largely caused by documenters relying uncritically on unmediated AI-generated content, which tends to be vague and unspecific, and not applying sufficient "human-in-the-loop" critical insight to correct and expand AI summaries. But as we do not have budget for quality control, such summaries are being added to the Archives as-is.
[opposing] Poor summary quality is being addressed, to some extent, outside of Archives WG (e.g. Vani checks and corrects summaries in WGs she is active in when they are presented for members' comments), but this is both time-consuming and limited in reach, and also unpaid. We noted that other measures might need to be implemented eventually (e.g training for documenters?)
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Knowledge graph development: In August and so far in September, the focus (see https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/277 and https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/SingularityNET-Archive/issues/279 , and this repo https://github.com/SingularityNET-Archive/Graph-Python-scripts) has been on moving away from Neo4.j Aura towards a Python-based open source approach, using the open-source graph tool Gephi.
Stephen has then been refining the raw, undifferentiated graphs with graphical and statistical methods such as force-directed layouts to help discern patterns and disambiguate clusters.
[rationale] To align more fully with the Archives' open source ethos.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Stephen will be delivering a session on Thurs 25 Sept at AI Sandbox/Think Tank to share the knowledge graph work so far.
[rationale] Especially given that in Q4 we hope to engage the community with some rule-based auditing of graph outputs, we want to introduce people to the work so far.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We discussed a little what kinds of things the community might want to be able to ask a knowledge graph. We noted the following possibilities:
Who is working where, and whether this is reflected in recognition people get (Peter)
Can the Archives corpus tell us anything, by implication, about what goes on outside meetings? (e.g. action items assigning async work; linked documents that are outputs of async work) (Vani)
Influence, who has it, and how it fluctuates (we noted that early indications are that influence is not monolithic or fixed, that there are sevral "clusters" of influence, and that it is quite fluid and changes rapidly, perhaps reflecting the decentralised nature of the Program)
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We discussed how our knowledge graph outputs could eventually be integrated into the ecosystem. Suggestions included
a Discord bot which could retrieve material to answer people's questions
integration with R&D's Governance Dashboard, particularly to ensure that its AI assistant has meaningful input on the Ambassador Program's specific context. (We noted also that generative models can be limited in their usefulness, particularly if all we do is throw a load of unstructured data at them. Because they can at least do more than they could a couple of years ago, people can be misled about their usefulness.)
some kind of collaboration with Atomspace https://github.com/opencog/atomspace
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We noted that our knowledge graph work in Q4 is likely to address the different approaches needed for structured data (e.g some of meeting summary templates in use) and unstructured data (e.g. documents that are linked in meeting summaries; and the unstructured, free-text fields such as "Meeting Narrative" that are currently part of some summary templates.)
This will likely involve some semantic analysis (for example analysing particular parts of speech - what nounds are there, what verbs are there, in a piece of text?), and some sentiment analysis, in which we hope to move beyond simplistic "good/bad/neutral" approaches The fact that the archives corpus includes extensive "emotion tags" could be interesting here.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
In a collaboration with Video WG, André and Malik have created a process to automate Town Hall suammries, using Read.ai data to create timestamps, and automating adding them to the summary tool. The meeting acknowledged how useful this is, and thanked Malik for the work, which will be compensated from Archives WG reserves with a smaller contribution from Video WG.
[rationale] This addresses the ongoing pain point of finding time to submit summaries of Ambassador Town Hall to the Archives.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Archives WG's Q3 quarterly report and Q4 budget have been submitted to the new Governance Dashboard here https://singularitynet-governance-dashboard.vercel.app/dashboard/proposals/cmfl42fhl0001l80a7auerrrl
The consent process ends on 30th Sept, so we will know then if it has been approved.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Vani to publicise the information session at AI Sandbox/Think Tank next Thurs, 25th Sept [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 19 September 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: AI ethics, token price, Neo4j, community engagement, q4 2025 budget, open source tooling, Knowledge Graph, Knowledge management across the singularityNET ecosystem, Gephi, Q3 2025 quarterly report, Open source, AI Sandbox/Think Tank, Video WG, human-in-the-loop, AI-generated summaries, meeting summary quality, Atomspace, R&D Guild, Governance Dashboard, what kinds of questions, structured vs unstructured data, Town Hall summaries, Automation, semantic analysis, sentiment analysis, Discord bot, WG reserves, force-directed graph layouts
emotions: interesting, short, wide-ranging, Discursive
Last updated