Meeting #7, 9th June 2022

Meeting recording

Minutes of Catalyst Circle v3 Meeting #7

Present (in order of first speaking)

Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Felix Weber (CF); Rhys Morgan (stakepool operators); Nadia Hopkins (Community Advisors); Harris Warren (IOG); Mercy A (Funded Proposers); Dimitri Fernando (General ADA Holders); Kriss Baird (IOG); JP (secretary); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member).

Speaker percentages

Nori (19%), Felix (15%), Nadia (14%), Harris (12%), Mercy (10%), Dimitri (8%), Rhys (7%), Kriss (6%), Joey (6%), JP (2%), Quasar (<1%)

Abbreviations used/Glossary

ATH – After Townhall, breakout rooms after the regular Wednesday TownHall meeting
CA – Community Advisor, the old name for a role open to anyone in Catalyst, to assess proposals in each funding round - now renamed PA
CC – Catalyst Circle
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 –
CGO - Community Governance Oversight, a F7 and F8 funded proposal that has created a team to discuss and provide oversight of key Catalyst governance processes
dRep – delegation representative, a new role that will be introduced for Fund 10; people to whom a voter will be able to delegate their voting power. See the registration form and documentation
PA - Proposal Assessor, the new name for the role that used to be called CA
SPO – stakepool operator
VCA – Veteran Community Advisor, the old name for a Catalyst role open to those who have been a CA in previous rounds, to assess the CAs’ reviews
VPA - Veteran Proposal Assessor; the new name for the role that used to be called VCA.
Voltaire – the next phase on the Cardano roadmap to decentralisation

1. Opening, agenda (0:00)

Check-in (0:25) Announcements and introducing new members Felix and Kriss (3:02) Discussion on presence of Quasar in the meeting (6:59) Agenda and align expectations (17:31) – decision to focus on Consent Agenda and forego looking at Prioritised Problems.

2. Circle stand-up

Due to the length of the Consent Agenda discussion, there was no Circle Stand-up in this meeting.

What is the status and future of the Circle? (22:10)

Key points:
Harris (22:10) We were approved, but not funded. There is some negative feedback in Town Halls, so we should communicate our role more clearly. But Circle should persist, to enable hand-off of decision making from IOG; although we can change its structure. Rhys (25:21) We were voted in for 6 months so we owe it to the community to fulfil that term, regardless of funding. Joey (26:18) The non-funding was not a referendum on the validity of Circle; I think the proposal was confusing and budget too high. Felix (27:13) Any future proposals will separate Admin and Circle. Rhys (28:18) The proposal submitted by Dimitri without our consent may have added to the confusion and the criticisms, and caused down-voting. Harris (29:09) The proposal also lacked a clear category to submit in. For F10, perhaps we need a clear Catalyst Governance challenge. Mercy (31:44) Voting is unpredictable, and is about priorities – note, there were projects with bigger budgets that were funded. If Circle is potentially a hand-off group, IOG might need to consider how to fund it in a more consistent way. Felix (34:36) We should be more like any other project in Catalyst – a group of people trying to make things better. Perhaps the community does not want us to be a central authority. Maybe in future it should be the community or the sub-circles, not Circle or Circle Admin, who write proposals. Nori (37:16) Perhaps anyone should be able to get, say, 50 names on a petition and start their own sub-circle and send a rep to Circle. Harris (37:47) Perhaps Circle should be funded via a parameter, like Challenge Teams or dReps? That could be a proposal for the community to vote on. Nadia (42:02) I like the idea of experimenting. Is representation by role the best way? I like the idea of the Circle Rep role being distributed to a sub-circle. But what will work with one group, might not work with another. From my perspective, it could look like this Dimitri (46:16) I agree the Circle reps’ role could taken on by sub-circles; we want to do that with the General ADA holder role.
Summing up (Nori, 47:15) : The consensus is that Circle is legitimate; we want to experiment; and we are leaning towards using sub-circles as an experimental model

General ADA holder sub-circle

Key points: Harris (49:08) Perhaps we need to define the structure of a sub-circle. Dimitri, what is your planned sub-circle structure? It seems you are forming a sub-circle so that you can be paid. Dimitri (50:27) I will be stepping down from Circle and forming a sub-circle. We will work to create a Catalyst road map, and want to be paid for that work from the Rapid Funding proposal It is right that people should be paid for work done. Felix (53:06) Do you have a channel such as Discord for your community? and who is part of your sub-circle? Nori (54:32) In general we should be clear how a person can join a sub-circle. Nadia (1:00:00) We all use sub-circles differently. I neither agree nor disagree with someone who steps down being paid from Rapid Funding; but if we do it, there should be discussion. Rhys (1:03:22) It’s very clear in the proposal that the Rapid Funding is not for Circle reps to pay themselves. Harris (1:04:11) Maybe in future that can be redefined – but not without community buy-in. So I would like to block Dimitri doing it at this point. Mercy (1:05:37) But Dimitri is right that we should avoid volunteerism. It’s nuanced - there should be some wiggle room, as long as there is clarity around it and it’s for a specific task. We shouldn’t turn wanting to get paid into a dirty word. Felix (1:10:38) The Rapid Funding proposal is owned by CC Admin, so it is their decision. JP (1:12:16) While Admin are the gatekeepers, we are only ensuring alignment with what the proposal says. It’s not for us to judge the idea – but stepping down as a Circle rep in order to be paid contravenes the intent of the proposal. Nori (1:13:46) Legitimacy - there must be no question that funds are being diverted in some way that people can question. Some people think it’s more nuanced, and some agree that we cannot pay money from this proposal – we are going to go with the latter - as the Admin Team, we cannot release any of the rapid funding funds into Dimitri's wallet, but we can into any of the sub-circles. Kriss (1:16:51) Maybe in future, it would help to pay “work done”, i.e. completed. Nori (1:18:01) In future, I would love if the Admin team did not submit any more rapid funding proposals, but the sub-circles do, so they can have their own Treasury management and their own agreements on how it is spent.

What is the agenda and output of the Circle for the remainder of the term?

How often should we meet; what should be the format of the meetings? Should we keep reporting to TH? If yes, what should be the format? Should it be modified from previous?
Key points:
Nori (1:19:05) We have a lot of ideas around sub-circles, and a need to look at CCv4 elections – so is our focus to define Circle processes, refine what we are doing, and decide whether CCv4 elections will be sub-circles electing someone internally? Rhys (1:20:47) Nadia’s process is a good place to start. We can all do it in our own ways, but it would bring wider participation Nadia (1:22:35) I would like to discuss my process more with the PA subcircle. I know it might not work for other groups so I’d also like to hear feedback from other communities. I am going to vacate the Rep role, and will move to the role of trustee of the PA sub-circle Treasury, which is a volunteer role [Summariser's note: as established by this F8 proposal] But it’s important that Circle roles are compensated. Nori (1:28:11) Whoever sits on Circle would need to know how Circle works. Having a new person every 2 weeks could disrupt meetings unless they get some training/ mentoring first. Nadia (1:28:43) I think people in sub-circles should be able to swap roles; they should not just hold one stable role. Mercy (1:29:10) The Funded Proposers group organises more on a geographical basis. Joey (1:31:28) We could train sub-circle members in e.g. the GitHub board, so they can fill in for the reps until we have an election. it might encourage them to stand for election in CCv4. Felix (1:33:58) More outreach to the community so they know what Circle is about, and invite comments on how Circle can improve. Joey (1:35:59) I note Dimitri has left the meeting. If he is standing down, hope he will continue to work with his sub-circle and rotate people in and out so his role is still represented. Nadia (1:37:00) On sharing info, Phil Khoo is developing a community Wiki. Generally, the community are forming tools that will enable Circle to capture conversations more organically. Kriss (1:37:44) Harris, Jack and I are working on the Governance portal, which will also be a Wiki - centrally maintained by IOG at first, but we intend eventually community-maintained. We could present it in a future Circle meeting.
Summing up (Nori, 1:40:27) So we are agreed that our future focus is redesigning how Circle could operate.

Election for CCv4

Key points:
Harris (1:41:19) I propose we decide on the set of seats on Circle – they could be represented by sub-circles or individuals – and get challenges and proposals into the system so the voting for CCv4 can be via IdeaScale. Mercy (1:42:24) So we need to announce it at next Town Hall so candidates can stand. Nori (1:43:21) Maybe, in the model emerging from the PAs, there would be no IdeaScale vote. Nadia (1:44:03) Yes, we could have a sub-circle putting forward proposals Kriss (1:46:04) Need to be wary of creating a separate process that undermines the existing Catalyst process, so people do not start to see a sub-circle side Treasury as the way to get their proposal funded. Felix (1:47:23) Any governance body should be sustainable. To look at parameters (e.g. the referral system) we need to know from IOHK what are the measurements they set to be able to make a parameter change? so that Circle and sub-circles can coordinate this. But there is a question of legitimacy – if nobody votes, does the community endorse the process? Joey (1:50:03) To Kriss’s point; we all use our sub-circles differently, so there’s not a single defined purpose or process for all sub-circles and this issue might not apply to all of us. Nadia (1:51:05) A sub-circle shouldn’t try to create any new function of a Circle rep; and we shouldn’t develop things outside the whole existing ecosystem.
ACTION ITEM: CCv4 election be discussed in detail in Circle’s working meeting on 16th June

4. Checkout and close (1:53:01)

Checkout (1:57:17) – each member in turn makes closing remarks.
  • Kriss (1:57:50) I would like to add the issue of “referrers” role to agenda for a future meeting.
  • Felix (1:55:21) Good to define agenda items in advance so we can consult our communities.
  • Nori (1:57:54) Admin team will reach out to the General ADA holders subcircle that is forming, and see how they want to proceed, since Dimitri has stepped down. Also the PAs, as Nadia is stepping back. We never discussed whether that should trigger an emergency election, so we should discuss that in the working session next week.
  • Mercy (1:58:55) I want to put on record how much I’ve valued the support of Danny, Kriss, Harris and Marek on being able to make improvements for proposers. Also want to second Kriss on idea of looking at referral bonus.
  • JP (2:02:38) Given the level of work, we need to check in every week, so the working meetings on the weeks in between regular Circle meetings will become more important.
Meeting ends 2:05:42

Key words from this meeting

Some of the words used most frequently in this meeting


Intelligent-verbatim transcript of this meeting

Meeting #7, June 9th 2022 QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc

Agenda for this meeting

CCv3 meeting #7 Agenda.doc