Week 6
2nd February 2026 to 8th February 2026
Tuesday 3rd February 2026
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], Tevo [documenter], PeterE, Tevo, guillermolucero, Tina Shriver, Stephen [QADAO], UKnowZork, AshleyDawn, Love Owokere
Purpose: Space to discuss governance related topics for Ambassador Program
Media link: Link
Narrative:
Review of Project-Based Funding Model
Discussion Points:
Participants reviewed the Project-Based Funding document and discussed the raised questions
Concerns were raised about whether a shift to could weaken the established culture within Ambassador groups
New members highlighted that onboarding and learning were valuable in themselves, often without expectations of financial rewards.
The ecosystem was described as one where contributors often enter with low expectations and value the freedom to choose workgroups, develop skills, and sometimes be rewarded for learning.
A concern was raised that many workgroups currently spend a large portion of their budgets on operational costs rather than outputs.
Uncertainty remains around what exactly administrative roles are funded to do and how their value is assessed.
Concerns were expressed about rigidity in project design; some suggested a role-based, contract-style approach once a project plan and requirements are clear.
Existing workgroup interests may resist change under a new funding model.
Participants discussed separating financial compensation from other forms of recognition, such as reputation or non-monetary rewards.
Greater diversity in recognition mechanisms was encouraged, potentially linked to tokenomics.
Caution was raised about focusing too heavily on “reputation” instead of “contribution,” noting the importance of language and framing.
There was concern that focusing only on paid work risks undervaluing non-building contributions.
The group acknowledged that reputation systems are complex and that historical data may behave in unexpected ways.
Participants questioned whether project-based systems actually lead to meaningful results.
There was skepticism about defining “results” purely in terms of outputs, KPIs, or deliverables.
The need for clearer definitions of outcomes and impact was highlighted.
The group discussed whether standardized project templates and assessment frameworks are needed.
Allocation amount should be addressed early to clarify scope and planning assumptions.
Project duration and selection cadence were debated, with quarterly cycles seen as a good balance for iteration and learning.
Some participants preferred focusing deeply on a single project rather than spreading resources across many.
Mentorship was discussed as valuable but not universally applicable; some tasks are difficult to mentor.
Mentorship and onboarding introduce additional costs that must be considered in budgeting.
Project-Based Learning was identified as a strong fit, enabling documentation, onboarding, and knowledge transfer through real outputs.
Administrative roles were seen as important for improving quality and increasing participation, but they require experienced contributors.
Concerns were raised about contributors who are not part of active projects and how they would maintain Core Contributor status.
The group discussed quality assurance mechanisms, including milestone-based funding.
Participants discussed how to productively use the ideas generated in the session. Caution was expressed that AI-generated options require strong grounding and may not always save time or produce useful results without sufficient context.
Thursday 5th February 2026
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], lola [documenter], CallyFromAuron, lola, guillermolucero, PeterE, ayomi, LadyTempestt, Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, tina shriver
Purpose: To explore whether project-based funding could be introduced into the Governance WG ecosystem, and to clarify what would define a “project” under this model.
Working Docs:
Narrative:
This session explored the possibility of introducing project-based funding within the ambassadorship program, either as a replacement for or complement to the existing Work Group structure.
The discussion was to explore with work group members sharing perspectives on what should define a “project,” how projects could be funded, how decisions might be made, and how this approach would interact with current governance structures.
The collaborative document used Y / N responses to capture who agreed or disagreed with specific approaches
There was strong agreement that project-based funding should be tested experimentally (rather than fully adopted immediately), with more sessions required to talk about open governance, budgetary, and decision-making questions.
Discussion Points:
What Should a “Project” Look Like?
Members discussed what qualities a project should ideally have, using Y / N responses to show agreement or disagreement.
Points that’s were talked about:
Projects should align with the ambassadorship mission, vision, and BGI
Projects should include some form of education or community engagement
Projects should be open-source (including Creative Commons where relevant)
Projects should connect to decentralized governance
Projects should have ethical values (to be defined further)
Rather than setting permanent rules, the group agreed it’s better to test the idea with 1–2 pilot projects first
Other views:
Whether projects should always be experimental
Whether a ‘Theory of Change’ should be required
Whether use of the ambassadorship tech stack should be mandatory (generally seen as optional, not required)
Roles and Work Elements Within Projects
Members discussed what roles projects would typically need and whether they should be paid.
Broad agreement:
Projects should include project management
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is important
Documentation should be part of all projects
Other views:
Mentorship was seen as valuable but not essential
Publicity or communications would depend on the project
On payment, most agreed that key roles such as research work etc should be paid, but with flexibility. Some roles (such as mentees or documentation) could be unpaid or structured differently such as offering people things of value like mentorship in place of a pay depending on the project and the benefits involved.
3. Project Duration and Structure
There was no single agreed project length.
Key points raised:
Some governance projects take close to a year
Others may become outdated quickly
Project-based funding shifts focus from hours worked to tasks completed
Overall, there was a preference for flexible timelines, with around six months seen as a reasonable starting point and room for mid-project reviews or adjustments.
4. Budget and Scope (Q2 Context)
Members reviewed the available Q2 budget and constraints such as transaction fees and treasury costs.
General sentiment:
Caution against moving fully to project-based funding immediately -Preference for a hybrid approach, combining projects and WGs (e.g. 50/50 or 80/20)
Keeping WGs funded for ideation, coordination, and specific work
Decision-Making and Governance
Several governance questions were raised but not resolved in this session, including:
How projects would be proposed
How projects would be selected
How roles would be assigned
How quality and progress would be assessed
How and when payments would be made
These were noted as areas needing more discussion in a follow-up session.
Relationship Between Projects and Work Groups
There was discrepancies around how project-based funding would coexist with existing WGs.
Key questions asked:
Whether projects would replace WGs or run alongside them
What WGs would be funded if projects are introduced
what they will be funded to do.
How volunteering and ideation would fit into this structure
if project-based funding is done as an experiment, what will the experimental mehodology be, and how will we assess, using what criteria, whether the experiment was a success?
No consensus was reached on this
Decision Items:
No formal decisions were made.
Suggestions were:
Treat project-based funding as an experiment
Avoid fully replacing WGs without testing
Continue discussions in follow-up sessions
Action Items:
[action] Schedule a follow-up governance session focused on; Decision-making approach, Budget allocation models. [status] todo
[action] Define criteria for 1–2 pilot projects for Q2 [status] todo
[action] Clarify; evaluation metrics for the experiment, Payment structures and timing, Clear boundaries between WG work and project-based work [status] todo
Last updated