Meeting #12, 18th August 2022
Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member); Steve Lockhart (standing in for Mercy; Funded Proposers); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Felix Weber (CF); Tomi Astikainen (PAs); Rhys Morgan (stakepool operators); Peter (secretary); Kriss Baird (IOG).
Nori (24%), Quasar (19%), Tomi (14%), Kriss (14%), Felix (10%), Rhys (8%), Steve (6%), Joey (3%), Peter (2%)
Check-in (0:03) Action items (3:36) Announcements (5:53) IdeaFest videos are uploaded on Swarm channel (Felix)
Agenda (6:19): Items added: titling of e.g. Google docs to make it clear they originate from Circle(Quasar); request for info from IOG re: who is on their Coordinator team (Quasar); how to recruit candidates for the redesigned CCv4 seats, and how CCv3 can start building the sub-circles for CCv4 (Tomi); deciding voting criteria for CCv4 vote (Felix)
Steve Lockhart (14:26) I'm unclear whether it has been agreed that CCv4 seats should be defined by the five GPS categories. Nori (15:01) There was a vote on this in the previous meeting, so that’s decided.
(16:26) Agreement to prioritise election-related topics on the agenda.
CCv4 election checklist created by Felix – tasks that need to be done Catalyst GPS Trustee Guide created by Tomi – a guidance document to tell CCv4 reps and subcircle members how to work Shared notes on Circle v4 composition – originally created by Tomi? and deleted. Copied by Zoe Nomination criteria for candidates for election to CCv4
(21:45) Needs to allow sufficient time for informing the community before nominations open, running the nomination process, and allowing DripDropz to carry out their work. Steve (22:34) Election launch should be all the Town Halls, not just Wednesday Town Hall. Kriss (25:52) We should work backwards from the vote itself. Tomi (30:12) Was there any decisions made [i.e. from IOG] about incentives – is it coming from Treasury?
(32:53) Interpersonal tension
Nori (37:55) Date for the vote: Sept 22nd - October 2nd. Does everyone agree? [no objections] Nori (40:37) Nomination window for candidates will be September 1st -14th, and September 15th – 22nd to check nominations. Does everyone agree? [no objections] Felix (41:15) Nomination criteria – base them on those used for CCv3 - experience, commitment, engagement, etc. See Nomination criteria Steve (42:49) This should be a priority – if we are encouraging people to stand for election, they need to know what they’re standing for.
Felix (43:17) We need to know from IOG about whether compensation will be via a parameter change. Rhys (45:59) To speed things up, I propose $1,000 a month per person. Tomi (46:56) Is the term 3 months? Kriss (47:08) I think we agreed 6 months with a stage gate at 3 months to ask if they want to continue. Quasar (49:10) We should probably set the amount in ADA. Tomi (47:55) I suggest $3,000 per month per sub-circle, to fund a rep, a secretary and a facilitator. Nori (49:27) It sounds like $1,000 is where people feel comfortable, and there is a proposal to do it in ADA. Kriss, is that enough information to take back to IOG? Kriss (49:49) The last conversation that the IOG governance team had with Charles, is that new decisions on Treasury movements aren't necessarily going to be just decided by the existing stakeholders. I’ll bring feedback next week; it might mean we need a baseline service-level agreement on what people will be doing for that money. Quasar (53:47) Is funding for Challenge Teams agreed? Kriss (54:00) Yes for F7, 8 and 9; but for F10, I will check and report back next week.
ACTION ITEM: Kriss to take proposal of $1,000 per seat per month back to IOG, and report back next week. ACTION ITEM: Kriss to find out if Challenge Team funding for F10 is agreed, , and report back next week.
Nori (57:19) We need to finalise nomination criteria by next week. Joey, Rhys (57:45) Agreement to do this in this meeting See Nomination criteria Felix (59:43) Last week we agreed that the responsibilities are the same for all roles, and the qualifications are specific to each role.
- 1.represent the Catalyst community, its needs, divisions and all its beautiful frictions
- 2.represent the interests of the functional role they're selected for, and provide a unique perspective to the others
- 3.exercise their own best judgement about matters that come before the Circle
- 4.familiarise other members with the projects, activities, aims, hopes, and concerns of their communities
- 5.periodically take the opportunity to introduce policy proposals into the Circle's agenda for consideration
- 6.inform their communities about the initiatives of the Circle
- 7.regularly attend meetings every two weeks
- 8.maintain an agile backlog list of tracked issues between meetings
- 9.review and comment on agenda issues ahead of time
- 10.maintain awareness of the interests and concerns of the community
- 11.disseminate the Circle outputs transparently and accessibly
- 12.learn and practice effective meeting procedures
- 13.produce an election protocol document for the next elections
- 14.attend training sessions focused on inclusive and lean startup leadership techniques
- 15.provide feedback on the effectiveness of the Circle.
(1:02:46) Decision to remove point 14, “attend training sessions”. Kriss (1:02:53) What is the user journey? Are all the reps engaging the same people, or are they each going to a subset of the community? Nori (1:05:46) The dynamic has changed – Circle reps will appoint a secretary and facilitator for their sub-circle, and the community will then come to the sub-circle rather than the rep doing outreach. Tomi (1:06:28) We can use the Catalyst Discord, or the Catalyst United Discord, for all the subcircles to come together; each subcircle could have its own channel there.
Quasar (1:07:13) I'm concerned that we are assuming that people agree with these categories. Unsure if it will improve the communication between the functional groups. Are we categorising people based on our own assumptions? Felix (1:07:58) Can we work through the other points? Nori (1:08:03) I want to respond to Quasar. I used to think the same, but now I feel we have to decide the categories now, and then in future iterations the community can decide. Quasar (1:09:02) Do we know what the goals are? We’ve gone from five functional groups with roles, to 10 stereotypes. Felix (1:09:30) Our goals and objectives have been well defined by Catalyst GPS. Felix (1:10:00) One of our goals from CCv1 is to set up the election process for the next Circle. Quasar(1:10:09) Yes. And another goal from CCv1 is to facilitate communications between, and across, the functional groups. How well have we been doing that, and will the new categories help, or not? Kriss (1:11:39) I appreciate the strategy document that GPS group has produced, but I'm still not sure when it seems to have been unilaterally decided to implement these changes. Nori (1:12:13) We had a vote at one of the previous Circle meetings, and it was decided. Harris abstained, but did not object to it. And the rest of the Circle did not have strong objection to move forward with this as an experiment.
Tomi (1:13:40) The Catalyst GPS Trustee Guide says that the community all need to have one common dream; but I don’t see this in the nomination criteria document. Tomi (1:15:21) Remember, this is for CCv4. If they're successful, then the CCv5 will maintain it, not create it. So I think the Circle role naturally changes over time.
Felix (1:17:19) Who here keeps track of the work they do for Circle? The responsibility “maintain an agile backlog list to track issues between meetings" – this has always been hard to motivate Circle members to do. Steve (!:17:49) The Funded Proposers sub-circle do. Nori (1:18:23) It may be easier with an entire sub-circle working on it. The Prioritised Problem board was a core mechanism of Circle for this. We stopped using it to focus on the election. Unsure if it was effective or not.
Joey (1:22:46) I propose a vote on whether everyone is happy with the “Responsibilities” as they now stand. VOTE: all voted yes, but with some questions from Quasar (1:24:12 and 1:25:34) Quasar (1:24:12) Alternative suggestion for how to define the Circle.
Tomi (1:28:11) Working group two weeks ago was supposed to look at the focus; but not done, as nobody attended. We should ensure everyone shares the same understanding so we don't need to argue any more, and we can give clear messages to the community.
Quasar (1:28:54) If you were to stand for CCv4, which role would you stand for? Or, which role do you think your friends would nominate you for? Tomi (1:28:54) I have been working in "Structure and Processes", but I would rather be in "People and Culture". Steve (1:29:30) I would stand for "Growth and impact" - but I disagree with this definition of the focus I'm not interested in marketing, I'm interested in building. Other than the term "Growth and impact", I don't see that emphasis on building. We want to bank the unbanked, and that means community hubs and education; yet, it's really hard to make that a standard in the community, in Catalyst, in the Circle. Tomi (1:31:20) Marketing is important for growth. But we could use the word “outreach” instead. Kriss (1:32:09) What is the role of the sub-circle there? Are these things that the subcircle would actually do, or things they would discuss? Tomi (1:33:02) We need to define the role of the sub circles – it has not been written yet. Nori (1:36:45) Agreement on how to finalise the role descriptions and Subcircle descriptions
ACTION ITEM: Quasar and Rhys to lead on rewrites of the role descriptions; wording to be finalised at next week’s meeting. Anyone who does not make changes is deemed to be agreeing to the wording as it stands.
Felix (1:43:55) Governance Services Guild (CC Admin as was) will not be managing the election this time, so who will do it? Quasar (1:46:43) Circle will do it. Quasar (1:49:05) I will run a new Pol.is survey.
Agreed not to change time.
- Feedback loop was helpful - People are looking into the results of the QA stage after it has happened; discussions mainly in Discord. Steve (1:53:36) Vietnamese assessors issues seem to have been resolved. - VPA caution – VPAs wary of giving anything but simply “good” ratings in case rewards are slashed. - Petitions are now under way - Suggestion that flash rounds should be able to be flagged by proposers. Community asked for an answer on this from this meeting, but there has not been time to discuss it.
Meeting is out of time, so very brief checkout. 1:56:57 Checkout and closing remarks Meeting ends 1:59:23
Some of the most common words used in this meeting
CATH – Catalyst Africa Town Hall
CC – Catalyst Circle
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 called 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 12,18th August 2022, QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc