Meeting #10, 21st July 2022
JP (facilitator); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member); Kriss Baird (IOG); ); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Felix Weber (representing CF); Ondřej Hálek (Catalyst GPS); Steve Lockhart (Funded Proposers Subcircle; Rhys Morgan (stakepool operators); Tomi Astikainen (representing PAs); Peter Wolcott (secretary, present for part of the meeting).
JP (26%), Ondřej (15%), Kenric (13%), Kriss (12%), Rhys (11%), Tomi (6%), Felix (5%), Steve (5%), Quasar (4%), Joey (3%), Peter (<1%)
please scroll down
Check-in – 1:38 Announcements – 5:44 None Agenda and align expectations – 6:21 Minor changes to the order of items on the agenda.
Circle is no longer doing a Stand-up or addressing the Prioritised Problems Board. Summariser has asked when this decision was formally made, but did not receive an answer.
Many bot PA assessments in this Fund. Proof of life is a big issue for the whole community.
Kriss (11:14) it’s not an IdeaScale issue, so much as a need to eliminate reliance on CSV files that are manipulated manually. IOG are working on this, but it’s not a quick fix. Rhys (13:44) Suggestion from the SPO community i- include a CAPTCHA box when a PA submits an assessment. Simple fix for F10 until something better is developed. Tomi (19:43) The group working on VPA guidelines didn’t get things ready in time to implement changes for F9 – so it will be F10. On bots – IOG will probably remove only the really obvious ones, and leave the rest to the VPAs. Rhys (21:44) We say “bots”, but a big issue has been [human-generated?] copy-paste assessments. Solution should address not only clear bot manipulation, but all the problematic assessments that are hurting proposers. Perhaps we need more PAs? Kriss 22:53 Emurgo Academy might make it mandatory for trainees to participate as PAs. Tomi (24:32) RE: guideline changes, we need to involve all the Town Halls.
ACTION ITEM: issue to be discussed further in Slack between meetings.
Felix (26:02) If changes are made to the proposing and PA-ing processes, they should be announced to the community well in advance. Felix (26:58) Also, proposers should be asked to check whether their idea has ever been implemented before in Catalyst, to avoid duplication of effort. Kriss (28:23) I like the idea, but the IdeaScale archive is not user-friendly – it could be tackled with support from Cardano Cube or Built On Cardano. On communicating changes – there should be a freeze 2 weeks before each stage opens, to allow time to communicate any changes to the community. Tomi (31:58) Weren’t the Funded Proposers Sub-circle working on this?
Steve (32:47) No, our sub-circle has not talked about it.
Point of information: Steve is incorrect. The FP Subcircle discussed the proposal submission form at length, several times, at several forums including ETH and CATH.
Steve was present for at least one of those discussions; and the main new question that came from the FP Subcircle (“Will you return for further funding?”) was added at his suggestion, which he made in a Subcircle meeting on 26th April 2022. The other change suggested by the FP Subcircle was the addition of a tick box, “Has your proposal been translated from another language?” All these proposed changes were shared with the community for commentary here .
Other additions to the form (chiefly, questions on whether proposers have other proposals in this Fund or other Funds) were instigated by the PAs sub-circle – this is one early source, but there are others.
Rhys (34:03) Circle should have ownership of discussing changes to proposal submission form, not sub-circles. We should manage the discussions with the community and decide on them, and bring them to IOG to get implemented.
ACTION ITEM: Circle will request a hard deadline for changes to the proposal form. Leading up to that hard deadline, there will be an opportunity for the Circle and the community to discuss potential changes that would be implemented by that hard cut-off. ACTION ITEM: Felix and Kriss to lead on managing changes to the proposal submission form for F10.
Ondřej: (38:20) Circle should be a body which facilitates the setting of a strategy for the community, so we have a common purpose, dream, values. (40:05) I'm not necessarily saying let's use GPS for Circle to do this; and definitely not let's use GPS forever. But I am saying we need a transparent way for things like GPS to be tested. (40:26) The way Tomi has structured GPS, it won’t necessarily change Catalyst. But there are more powerful ways to use GPS, which would require some governance-related parameter changes; this presentation is about how we can get that implemented. (41:23) If anyone thinks an initiative such as GPS is a mistake, they can disagree with it, but should not try to stop it before it has been tested. (43:28) I suggest that Circle, plus others selected and onboarded by GPS, should create a test environment to implement strategic changes safely, and so a change can be rejected if it does not work. It could also be used by any other initiatives with similar goals. This needs support from Circle and IOG, which is why I'm presenting it. (45:15) I suggest 3 phases: 1) Testnet run, using 25 test proposals copied from Catalyst, with people paid to assess them. Doesn’t require new tools. Cost = $50,000, which could be via a proposal. 2) Mainnet test. 3) Full implementation. Cost = $300,000 via direct support from Treasury.
Questions: Kriss (48:05) I thought GPS was just a framework. I’m uncertain why a $300,000 cost to it. JP (52:41) So it’s a group of people essentially running a separate “mini-Catalyst”? Felix (55:17) This idea came from last week’s Circle working meeting [unrecorded? Felix and Ondřej were present], where Ondřej presented GPS and we had a 2-hour discussion about a Catalyst sandbox where we can test implementations before putting them into Catalyst where they might cause too many risks. JP (56:47) So you’re saying the initial stage is a Fund 10 proposal, submitted by the Circle? Ondřej (57:14) Yes, but we should know what the next steps will be after that proposal is complete. Tomi (58:37) Other groups in Catalyst share similar ideas of testing things out in practice. The Catalyst GPS framework will be given to the community at the end of August. JP 1:00:14 I encourage someone to take the lead, and start now to consider an F10 proposal, so we don’t miss deadlines.
1:03:04 Nothing has emerged in ATH or the Pol.is poll to suggest a CCv4 election should not go ahead. Meeting agrees to proceed with plans for the election. Kriss (1:03:36) It would be easy to include it as part of F10; but harder to run a vote outside of the current fund cycle. JP (1:04:50) Are there any objections to conducting the election on IdeaScale?
Quasar and Rhys object
Kriss (1:05:28) Note that it is possible to do it outside of IdeaScale, but still conduct the vote itself in the voting app. Rhys (1:05:25) Concern was expressed in the Circle Town Hall about “one ADA, one vote”. People want “one person, one vote”, but would accept "one wallet, one vote". Hazelnet bot on Discord might be a better solution, as we can tie things to an individual Discord account. Quasar 1:09:39 I objected to voting on IdeaScale; I didn't know there was a a way to side-load information. We could ask the community via a Pol.is poll. Kriss 1:10:59 The vote has to be as inclusive as possible; so if most people don't use Discord, it can't be the tool that gets used. Quasar 1:11:40 When I first joined Circle, we agreed our primary purposes were to ask the community if Circle is needed, and then focus on voting. JP 1:12:59 We have already established legitimacy; the community has said they want the Circle. [Summariser’s note: Circle deems the Circle ATH in late June, and the Pol.is poll, to have established Circle’s legitimacy. Results of Pol.is are here https://pol.is/report/r8sw3pmdn7kmvjffwxnvm/] So we should now focus on the vote and how to do it. Joey 1:13:31 Questions to consider: date of the vote? I understand this Circle will end in September, so election should be prior to that? Also how will it be announced so that candidates can stand?
ACTION ITEM: Rhys, Kriss and Steve to lead a working group about the election, which all other Circle members will join, and which will meet in the next working session, July 28th.
Kenric 1:20:59 Circle ATH discussed how to negotiate appropriate reward – I am suggesting a simplified second-price auction? 1:22:27 I propose a second-price auction process. Candidates each say what rewards they would accept. From the candidates who are “approved” (i.e. voted for) by the community, the one who gave the lowest amount, wins the seat, but gets rewarded not according to their own low “bid”, but according to the next-highest bid. This means different Circle seats would be paid different amounts. But there would be an overall minimum/ maximum range for what amount candidates can bid.
Questions Kriss Baird 1:27:30 Risk of bad actors bidding very cheap, with a view to getting elected even with very low pay so that they can then use their tenure to manipulate parameters. Kenric 1:28:18 Minimum / maximums could help address that. So could narrowing who is deemed “approved” – i.e. limiting the auction to only the top 3 or 4 candidates in the vote, so the winner will be someone the community has high regard for.
Kriss (1:30:04) – Before I have to leave, an aside: Circle Code of Conduct is with IOG Legal, so Harris and I will follow up on it.
Rhys (1:31:23) – Is it fair for different Circle members to be paid different amounts for essentially the same work? Kenric 1:34:14 One idea of fairness is to have everyone paid the same; but another is to recognise the differences in the different communities represented. Steve Lockhart 1:39:20 I don’t think we should encourage people from outside Europe and the US to work for less – it smacks of 21st-century colonialism. Kenric (1:40:52) I agree. One reason I suggested this approach is to contrast how members of this community are rewarded, with how those managing the community are rewarded. Steve Lockhart 1:41:24 This two-layered auction process is a really sophisticated method. It’s very optimistic to think we can explain it to people from other parts of the world. Tomi 1:42:27 It boils down to how we want to use the 20% that we take of every fund, so that it makes sense and makes the Catalyst process efficient. At the moment, we give it to PAs, VPAs, referees, CTs - but in future, we might want to give it to different people. We need a plan for that, broader than just Circle v4. Kenric 1:43:15 Yeah, this process could be used for the other things as well. But who decides what is fair? Tomi, you sent me a proposal, and it could possibly work, but that's *your* idea. Where does that come from? What's the validation of it? My point is to put a process in place that elicits the information from the community as to what they think is fair, rather than deciding, a priori, what we think is fair. That's the critical difference. Tomi 1:44:16 What I sent you was an example. But my point was, if we want to have a standardised way of paying people, we should acknowledge that someone who moves sand from one pile to another, should be paid less than a Haskell developer. JP 1:44:58 This conversation should be aligned with the discussion on voting, because how we compensate Circle will directly impact what voting process we take.
ACTION ITEM: this topic to be discussed further at next week’s working meeting. ACTION ITEM: Kriss to follow up on Circle Code of Conduct and bring to a future meeting.
Rhys: (1:46:29) A second survey was put out, which closed yesterday. Results . I have drafted a summary of the results, to discuss at next week’s working meeting . (1:47:37) Community members have asked me how Circle communicate, and were not happy that it’s in Slack. I propose moving all of our discussions from behind closed doors, into the Catalyst Discord.
Quasar (1:48:39) A lot of the community still doesn't know what Circle is; we need to be aware we haven't done the best job with communication, and there's some additional engagement opportunity there. JP (1:49:02) When Nori returns from holiday, discuss a possible move to Discord. Steve Lockhart (1:49:57) I appreciate everybody wanting to be transparent; but putting all our working conversations on Discord could generate a lot of noise. We can be transparent in different ways - we don't have to try to discuss this business so publicly. Everything about these meetings is published in video and written form. Rhys 1:50:54 I agree, but many people are saying it is hard to find information, so it would be one place to find information.
ACTION ITEM: Rhys to share document, and Pol.is survey to be discussed in nextworking meeting. ACTION ITEM: A move to Discord to be discussed further in next week’s working meeting or in next official Circle meeting on .
1:53:26 Checkout and closing remarks 1:57:20 Meeting feedback form
Meeting ends 1:57:49
Some of the words used most frequently in this meeting
CATH – Catalyst Africa Town Hall
CC – Catalyst Circle
CT – Challenge Team, a group of people who manage a Challenge within a Catalyst Fund.
LatAm – the Catalyst community in Latin America. Comprises a regular Town Hall and several other community initiatives.
PA - Proposal Assessor, a role open to anyone in Catalyst, to assess proposals in each funding round (Previously CA, Community Advisor).
SPO – stakepool operator
VPA - Veteran Proposal Assessor; a role open to those who have been a PA in previous rounds, which assesses the PAs’ reviews (previously VCA, Veteran Community Advisor).
CCv3 meeting 10, 21 July 2022 QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc
Agenda CCv3 meeting 10, 21 July 2022.doc