Meeting #6, 12th May 2022

Meeting recording

Minutes of Catalyst Circle v3 Meeting #6

NOTE:

This meeting took place just before the voting results for fund 8 were released. In fund 8, this proposal aimed to secure the funding for Circle's operations. The proposal was not successful. At the time of writing, it is unclear what the future of Circle will be.

Present (in order of first speaking)

Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Joey Chessher (representing Toolmakers and Maintainers); Rhys Morgan (SPOs); Mercy A (Funded Proposers); Harris Warren (IOG); Nadia Hopkins (CAs); Dimitri Fernando (General Voters); JP (secretary).

Apologies: Bullish Dumpling (Cardano Foundation).

Speaker percentages

Harris (26%), Nori (19%), Mercy (12%), Nadia (11%), Dimitri (11%), Joey (9%), Rhys (9%), JP (3%)

Abbreviations used/Glossary

API – Application Programming Interface (a software intermediary that allows two applications to talk to each other)

ATH – After Townhall, breakout rooms after the regular Wednesday TownHall meeting

CA – Community Advisor, a role open to anyone in Catalyst, to assess proposals in each funding round

CC – Catalyst Circle

CF – Cardano Foundation

CTC, Catalyst Technical Council, a proposed body that will be appointed by IOG to be involved in bicameral governance alongside the Catalyst community.

Catalyst School – https://thecatalyst.school

d-Rep – delegation representative, a proposed new role; people to whom a voter will be able to delegate their voting power. See the registration form

DID – Decentralised identifiers

ETH – Eastern Town Hall

Gimbalabs - https://gimbalabs.com/gimbalgrid

IOG – Input/Output Global

NFT – non-fungible token

QA-DAO – Quality Assurance Distributed Autonomous Organisation

SPO – stakepool operator

VCA – Veteran Community Advisor, a Catalyst role open to those who have been a CA in previous rounds, to assess the CAs’ reviews

Voltaire – the next phase on the Cardano roadmap to decentralisation

1. Opening, agenda (0:00)

Check-in (0:02) Announcements (4:13) Agenda and align expectations (6:06) – slight reallocation of time

2. Circle stand-up (9:06)

In the Stand-up, Circle members address how they have worked on their assigned problems on the Prioritised Problems GitHub board

Unassigned cards (9:12)

9:18 Community outreach reporting and KPIs – assigned to Rhys. Brief discussion of how to make the community aware of what Circle is doing. 14:00 Faster funding for Catalyst projects – signed off. 14:42 Anti-scammer bots on social media – Was moved to backlog and unassigned last meeting. 16:66 Nadia Perhaps this is also an issue of moderation, connected with Code of Conduct. 18:15 Harris: I think Circle should set a policy that even community-created channels on Discord or Telegram must be moderated according to rules defined by Circle, and Circle should assign people to moderate them.

ACTION ITEM: Joey to check for previous funded proposals that addressed the issue of anti-scammer bots, and add them to the card for that Problem prior to closing it.

Mercy (21:02)

Nadia (27:06)

ACTION ITEM: Nadia to add updates to cards when ready.

JP (29:35) Note from admin team: Circle Admin, from now on, will be adding any action items to the cards, and tracking them by following up with Circle members on Slack and prompting people to update their cards. Joey (30:22) If we have a suggested improvement – what is the next step, to get those ideas adopted by IOG? and who at IOG should we approach? Nadia (30:49) That is happening already for some ideas, via meetings with Danny to discuss what is possible. For VCA petition issues, they are now being compiled ready to present to IOG. Harris (34:17) The process will vary depending on whether the suggested change involves actually changing a Catalyst parameter. Summariser’s note: Harris outlines a process for how Circle reps can agree changes with IOG, and asks whether it is clear – and although nobody in the meeting asks anything further, there is a pause that suggests perhaps it is not entirely clear. And the meeting has not entirely clarified exactly what process should be followed by Circle reps to bring something to IOG; or what exactly is "changing a Catalyst parameter" and what is not; what IOG’s process for decision-making is; and what happens if a community suggests a parameter change that IOG does not agree. Nadia (35:53) Question of how much information on the cards is too much? I will update mine for next meeting, and perhaps we can use them to assess whether it is the right amount of info. Also maybe something that the Prioritised Problems working group can discuss.

Dimitri (37:06)

  • On Nurture a listening culture in Catalyst – I think people in Twitter spaces are now listening more to information about what Circle is, and what our powers are and are not. But this is not entirely what this card is about, and we have not agreed any specific actions

Nori (39:41): Need to define what “success” looks like for this card and identify steps towards it. Joey (40:18): This card started because there was a need to set up places for people in Catalyst to have general discussion, and it was solved by Felix and Tevo setting up a Discord server in Circle v1. (Summariser’s note: this is not quite accurate on the history of this card: it was opened in Circle v2, not v1, and was prompted by a need to address issues of bullying and silencing, primarily on Telegram).

ACTION ITEM: Rhys, Dimitri and Joey to meet offline to make a plan to close this card out and make notes of what was accomplished; and to consult with the Listeners group on Swarm Discord.

Harris (44:34)

Joey (45:33) Progress on this card - Dumpling held a Twitter space talking about what Circle is Mercy (46:16) We could hold a follow-up when we have clarified some of the questions raised. Nori (47:03) Good example of how cards need more detail, a definition of success, and a clear note of who is leading on it.

Nori (49:23) Again, this card needs conditions of satisfaction, and an indication of how and when it will be done.

  • Improve awareness of project Catalyst – Catalyst will be discussed at Consensus and IOG has done some work on branding for Catalyst which will be released at Consensus; so this card can be moved to “picked up”.

  • On Initiating a code of conduct for Circle – ongoing. Working meeting today, and ATH coming soon.

  • (52:26) On how to remove IOG from every decision - this is “picked up”. It will have to eventually mean involving entities outside IOHK in making decisions on Catalyst parameters; there has been good discussion on this by Community Governance Oversight, who help ensure decisions are more open with regards to what the parameters are, how decisions are made. The original idea was for it to be Circle and the Technical Council; so we need to start working on that pilot if we are to make progress, or on any other approaches that people want to suggest.

  • On Lack of onboarding structures – IOG is creating a landing page for Catalyst, to be launched around the time of Consensus; plus additional documentation is proposed in GitBook, and there will be opportunities for people to contribute to that. For example, we want to collaborate with ADAgov.

Rhys (57:42) I've also been working with Catalyst School on mini-courses for onboarding – lots of good progress being made, so it should be part of this.

ACTION POINT: Rhys, Joey, Harris, Nadia to meet to decide “what does success look like” for this card.

Joey (1:01:31)

  • Many of my tickets were from previous iterations of Circle and I believe they should now be closed out.

  • If I were to add a Problem to the board for myself, it would be the letter the community sent about transparency on the Treasury – it has been dealt with via the presentation Treasury did at Town Hall. Also, access to data APIs, which Harris is working on with me and with Phil Khoo and AIM. But at present these are not items on the board; they are mixed in with everything.

ACTION ITEM: Joey to add details to existing cards of what has been done across all 3 iterations of Circle, and a definition of what “success” looks like, and aim to close them out next meeting. (Summariser’s note: This was also an action from the last Circle meeting, and then, Joey suggested that he would include details of any proposals that were relevant to each card; so that should probably continue to be part of this Action Item.) ACTION ITEM: Joey to add cards to the board on “transparency on Treasury” and “Access to data APIs” and add detail on what was done and its impact for the community.

Dumpling (1:03:13)

Dumpling is absent, but she submitted a report. New issues, identified in a recent meeting with CF, are:

  • How to increase voter participation in challenge setting. In F8, 20,000 votes registered, but less than 400 for Challenge Settings.

  • Catalyst Handbook. Confusion about timelines, key dates, forms, etc – Dumpling plans to write a comprehensive handbook to help people navigate, customised for each funding round. Format TBC – possibly a Google doc. Circle reps are invited to contribute.

Rhys (1:04:13)

  • On Nurturing a listening culture - as we have all said, it’s ongoing. The Twitter space was part of it.

  • On Community outreach reporting and KPIs – important to discuss today and come back to the community with ways to explain what we do with some metrics they can check.

  • On Lack of permanent Miscellaneous challenge – with Felix and Lauris, the “SPO Guild” will be submitting a challenge setting for fund 9 on business opportunities, support etc for SPOs.

  • On Involve SPOs in Catalyst projects – Have been building a website with a job board or a way for people to advertise work to SPOs

  • Becky from IOG had to cancel planned breakout room in her monthly SPO community call in IOG Discord; frustrating, but hopefully it can happen next time.

  • Have set up calls with several SPO groups over the next 2 weeks.

ACTION ITEM: Rhys to update cards with details of what’s been done, and a definition of success.

3. Consent agenda (1:07:01)

CCv4 voting (Joey, 1:07:10)

Need to define dates for people to submit their candidacy, and date for the vote itself

Also – need a way for people to communicate with Circle and Circle Admin before deciding to stand, to ensure they know what the commitment is.

Key points: Harris (1:09:12) Propose we insert a Challenge for each Circle seat into Fund 9, even though these have not been voted on; so this process can be available in fund 9 – each candidate becomes a proposal in the relevant Challenge. Rhys (1:09:50) On the timing: our onboarding felt rushed, so need to allow plenty of time – suggest people announce their candidacy 5 weeks before the vote, so halfway through Fund 9. Nori (1:11:03) If we followed Harris’s suggestion and used IdeaScale, people would vote for Circle alongside the rest of the vote for Fund 9, and we’d have to wait till the results were declared before we knew who had been elected. Rhys (1:07:18) That’s a more fluid process and would work well. Nadia (1:13:32) If Circle candidates are voted on the same way as proposals, how do we deal with the “1 ADA to one vote” vs “one person, one vote”? Joey (1:14:12) Could we count how many wallets voted “For”? Harris (1:14:19 ) I believe there would be a way to identify that. But yes, we probably will need to have special treatment for these types of “proposals”. Dimitri (1:15:22) Need a way for the community to ask questions of the candidates before the vote. Could we use Pol.is? Nori (1:16:33) We can do it via IdeaScale’s comments section. Harris (1:16:55) We now have the precise schedule for fund 9, as announced in Town Hall – can work backwards from that. Harris (1:17:20) – it’s in consideration that IOG will ensure the fee for Circle v4 reps will be funded, with a separate incentive for those individuals. So the seats will be “zero value” challenges. JP (1:18:46) We would still do Governance Day, and provide a space for people to engage, even though it wouldn’t be the actual vote.

Proposal for use of Rapid Funding (Dimitri, 1:19:50)

  • (see detail in Agenda, posted below) Gimbalabs is running a Governance survey – I want to incentivise people for completing it, and also for offering to support newcomers. How much does Circle think these incentives should be?

  • Also, I want to hold Twitter spaces for proposals that relate to general ADA holders; and document them on a GitBook. What does Circle think would be optimum number of guests, time per guest, etc

  • And how would it be appropriate to publicise this – Town Hall slides, or in Town Hall chat, or not?

  • Also suggest a mini-funding scheme where low-budget proposals relevant to general ADA holder community can be part-funded from the Rapid Funding Mechanism.

Rhys (1:26:00) Great idea; but with Twitter Spaces, best to test it and prove your work before paying yourself, because if you don’t attract a crowd, then the money is wasted. Nadia (1:27:14) – best to talk to the Gimbalabs team about their survey first, before arranging to incentivise it. Harris (1:28:33) – I’d love to see this as a prioritised problem on the board, so that if you are doing it to solve a specific problem, it can be tracked. Mercy (1:29:03) – There are no huge red flags, so maybe we could discuss the detail offline. Joey (1:29:47) – Important to clearly define who you are paying and what for, so it can’t look like you are paying yourself. Nori (1:30:24) – I suggest, set up the Dework and Discord first, and use some of the rapid funding to offer bounties; it’s also a good way to track what has been done. But overall no strong objections; but some details to discuss. JP (1:31:20) – Also important to align what you are doing with the Rapid Funding proposal.

ACTION POINT: all to discuss details offline.

Code of Conduct discussion - Harris (1:32:30)

  • We tried to set some initial criteria, and I have manually reviewed the responses and tried to categorise them based on those.

  • There are several items that would be good for discussion in the ATH next week

  • I would also like to review the criteria and check we all agree they are reasonable.

  • The idea is, items that are split between “Agree” and “Disagree” should be discussed; items not relevant to Circle should be categorised N/A; and above 70% agreement means we should add those to the Code of Conduct. There are a lot between 40% to 69% agreement – maybe there is some value i n them, but they are questionable; so potentially we would have to discuss all of those. There were duplicates, which I have flagged as such. And anything with lower than 39% we would dismiss.

  • I have mostly ignored “abstain” votes. And I flagged any items with less than 10 votes – some of them, we could deliberate on; or we could share the spreadsheet with the community, and then bring that into the ATH.

  • 1:38:22 – Highlighting a few examples

Mercy (1:40:11) Need to clarify the consequences if the code of conduct is broken. Dimitri (1:40:52) I couldn’t agree to any code of conduct where only Circle members were constrained, but the community has no boundaries established at the same time. Nori (1:41:22) There is a community code of conduct, created by IOG> Maybe we need to publicise it more. Harris (1:44:10) The Code of Conduct will be a living document that can be changed – but we don’t want to take 3 months to get a version out. And we do need to deliberate more on what the consequences of breaking it should be.

ACTION ITEM: Harris, Rhys, Joey, Nadia to deliver ATH on 18th May.

Using scribes and record-keepers - Nadia (1:47:36)

  • I would like to use some Rapid Funding to enlist someone to document meetings in the CAs/VCAs subcircle.

  • 6 month term, so that the next CA rep could have someone already in place; and then enlist someone new so the process continues.

  • I would also like an open discussion on how other reps are doing trheir record keeping, and all do it the same way.

JP (1:51:02) – Again, please ensure it fits with the rapid funding proposal.

Catalyst issue sensing and scope /appetite for possible re-design (Mercy, 1:51:44)

  • There are many issues that need to be treated comprehensively – some from F8, some from earlier (e.g. IdeaScale not being fit for purpose has been an issue since F1; Insight Sharing never gets used as much as it could; barriers to non-English speakers is a growing problem; etc)

  • They are not specific to any one group

  • Do we need to consider more comprehensive changes for F9? What scope do we have to experiment?

Nori (1:56:21) – These can be prioritised problems on the Board, as Circle is the place where multi-group issues are raised. Mercy (1:56:52) – I will do that, and follow up in subsequent meetings, including the IOG side of it.

4. Checkout and close (1:57:15)

Meeting feedback form (1:57:22) Checkout (1:57:40) – each member in turn briefly says how they are feeling Harris (1:59:22) will be moving into another role at IOG, so someone else will be taking over as IOG Circle rep.

Key words from this meeting

Appendix

Intelligent-verbatim transcript of this meeting

Agenda for this meeting

PreviousCircle Code of Conduct discussion, 5th May 2022NextWorking meeting, 19th May 2022

Last updated