Comment on page
Working meeting, 16th June 2022
Harris Warren (representing IOG); Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Quasar (ADA Holders Sub-circle member); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Felix Weber (CF); Rhys Morgan (stakepool operators); Nadia Hopkins (Proposal Assessors); Kriss Baird (IOG); Mercy A (Funded Proposers).
Harris (22%), Nori (18%), Rhys (14%), Nadia (14%), Felix (10%), Joey (9%), Kriss (6%), Quasar (6%), Mercy (2%).
Agenda and align expectations (0:27) – agenda agreed
The meeting discusses the 3 agenda items CCv4 election process discussion and brainstorming; Sub-circles, reality check and expectation management and Next steps align and coordinate all together.
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.
(2:04) We have an opportunity to write the rules the way we think it needs to be. (2:40) Suggested voting process from IOG colleague Mike McNulty, using Jörmungandr (the sidechain currently used to vote on proposals) to create a voting pilot. Not part of F9 vote, so we don’t have to rush. (5:19) Voting will help establish the legitimacy of Circle, which has been damaged; legitimacy is necessary if Circle is to become a decision-making body. (6:11) Goal is first, to legitimise the members of Circle with a blockchain-based vote; and then increase community participation. (7:22) We want to use our research on Holacracy. for the future of Circle. The way Nori runs Circle meetings is already aligned with that.
Nori (8:28) Quasar has joined – Quasar, are you representing the General ADA Holder seat? Quasar (8:42) If that's required to observe the meeting, yes.
Joey (9:57) Is Jörmungandr ready? I saw a video on sidechain voting that suggested it wasn’t.
Harris (10:09) It is ready – it’s what we use for the vote now. We could race to run it via IdeaScale as part of the F9 vote; but we could also decouple it and run it as a separate event. But running a vote in the next 2 weeks, would be hard to create legitimacy.
Joey (16:41) Does the vote have to be secret? If we can publish who votes for who, then we could use upvoting via Dework; would be quick because it is already in place.
Nadia (17:10) That could be a workaround for the interim [i.e to legitimise the current Circle?] but not for a vote for CCv4 due to lack of anonymity.
Nori (17:30) To summarise, options so far: - an IdeaScale election as part of F9, with Circle seats as “challenges” and candidates as “proposals” - using Jörmungandr to run a separate vote, outside the IdeaScale process and timing. - sub-circles appointing their own representatives; figure out internally how to appoint somebody to represent them as Circle Rep, through an election or consensus. There could be a mix – some groups could opt into the larger voting mechanism, others can decide they want to self-appoint
Joey (21:35) We could appoint people temporarily to fill the spaces left by Circle reps who have left, until a new person can be duly elected.
Rhys (22:35) Anything is better than what we have. Anonymity for voters is not important.
Mercy (23:54) Funded Proposers are organising regionally; the different Town Halls allow a lot of distributed decision making already, so in the sub-circle perhaps it should not all boil down to elections.
Joey (25:32) When I was elected, I didn’t know anyone, but I was still able to get elected. The PA group is so engaged, that could no longer happen – whoever Nadia appointed as a temporary stand-in would 99% certain be voted onto the next Circle.
Kriss (28:55) Does anyone think strongly that it should be a secret ballot?
Felix( 29:11) It’s dangerous to be able to put names to votes.
Nadia (30:14) The FP subcircle and the PA subcircle are very different, although we call them the same thing; the FPs wrote a proposal, got it funded, and then appointed people; so we as PAs are more responsive. [Summariser’s note: slightly inaccurate; the funded proposers’ subcircle came together in F7, then afterwards they submitted an F8 proposal, with the team named in it; so the voters voted for that team.] On anonymity – in Catalyst we spend too much time preventing the downsides without balancing it with the upsides. It would be easier to run a vote if it was not anonymous.
Harris (33:40) Our goal is to increase participation in governance. There may be a danger in a public vote. Anonymity might not matter; but if votes are public then people might not vote if they see it’s already a landslide and feel their vote does not count. But we need to decide whether the existing seats are the seats we are electing. And whether there are sub-circles for all seats – if so, they can all be structured differently, but will there still be a specific elected rep?
Nori (36:24) Which seats are on Circle is a separate discussion from the voting mechanism.
Joey (38:50) Appointing people is OK for now, to fill vacant seats, because Circle has no power; it’s just a “listening” thing. But if it does get authority in future, the election process will be more important.
Felix (39:40) I propose an an After Town Hall – the community should have more input on topics like this, we could let the community give some feedback and let them decide; and we can come back and represent what they come up with. On using Dework – it has to be linked to Discord, so it excludes people who are not on Discord. We could have 2 processes in parallel – one subcircle could appoint a rep, others could vote via IdeaScale.
Nadia (42:03) As a temporary solution, to fill the gaps left by resignations, we could appoint one of the unsuccessful candidates who stood for election to CCv3.
Joey (43:26) We could use Circle’s Town Hall slides to gauge interest in an election at all – because there has been controversy, maybe nobody even wants an election?
Nori (44:13) Ith brings up the issue of - how will Circle reps be compensated? Will Sub-circles evolve to where they manage it?
Rhys (44:51) ATH is a good idea – but it doesn’t represent the whole of Cardano. Also a problem that a Town Hall is almost a week after this meeting, so it is slow and unresponsive.
Mercy (46:21) We should factor in other Town Halls.
Harris (47:38) We need a specific Governance challenge in F10. Possibly Circle did not get funding because there was no “home” for the proposal. Maybe we should submit a proposal to see whether people want Circle to have decision-making powers.
Harris (49:22) We [IOG?] also want to investigate a Catalyst parameter change that would pay Circle members, in the same way that we pay Challenge Teams. Maybe we should submit a proposal on it, to gauge support for the concept; or maybe IOG should just add it as a parameter, which is how IOG has historically decided other parameters. But we want the decision to be outside of IOG – so we would like a body, such as Circle, or other groups, to help make the decision on parameters.
Joey (51:40) Ask Danny to help get info out to the community. Also: add something to the voting app inviting people to donate to a Treasury to pay for Circle?
Nadia (52:47) To seek community feedback on how the voting process should be, use a Pol.is poll, as we did for the Code of Conduct? We also need to educate people on what they are voting about.
Kriss (55:14) If we have a governance challenge, and proposals get through which pivot away from what we are trying to do, that could pose risks. Diversity is great for apps and solutions, but I don’t buy into it as a great way to ratify structure. Perhaps we could limit the scope of what can be submitted as an idea, or who could submit an idea.
Rhys (1:00:06) This is a good opportunity to act fast and make quick test decisions; we can all run multiple tests within our specific communities. Someone might create something we can template across everyone.
Quasar(1:01:06) https://www.hazelnet.io/features/daos-voting is amazing. But what about people who don’t use whatever platform we choose – it would be good to have several options to iterate within the groups. On Challenge setting - I think people have trouble understanding that they have the authority, the ability and the right, to define what principles of governance are. None of us have ever been asked that question, and we don't know how to answer it.
Nori (1:03:07) What's the latest CCv4 can be instated? We can work backwards from that.
Nadia (1:06:21) On filling the vacant seats on CCv3 – with the Dimitri seat, is there a decision that Quasar has taken it, so we don’t need to hold an election? And should the PAs discuss it, which takes time; or should we fill it for now via an appointment?
Nori (1:07:10) We don’t have a procedure around what happens if someone steps down. We don’t have the staffing to run another election. I suggest appointment for the interim if there are no objections.
Kriss (1:08:38) Is Quasar willing to be appointed for General ADA Holders?
Quasar (1:09:01) Yes – but there will be controversy – are we demonstrating governance? Some think it should be voted on.
Harris (1:10:05) If there are going to be sub-circles and people swapping in and out, then appointing people will probably be part of our structure long-term; but we do need to establish bye-laws for Circle on things like this.
Harris (1:11:41) Nadia, I would support you appointing a person or group to be your interim replacement.
Nori (1:12:26) Seconded.
Nadia (1:12:48) Can we use the Rapid Funding to compensate whoever from the PA group takes that role? Because at present, it cannot be used to compensate the Circle rep.
Nori (1:14:48) the Admin team confirms that F7 rapid funding was used to compensate Circle members working in sub-circle. We think that sets a precedent, and our position is that it’s up to the sub-circle – we are no longer going to make that call. That opens the door to use that funding as each sub-circle sees fit – a discussion for another time.
[Summarisers’ note: This point is reiterated at 1:48:24 by Joey and Harris: specifically, that Dimitri can now be funded to work in his sub-circle, contrary to the decision given in the previous Circle meeting.]
Joey (1:15:19) Whoever takes the interim Circle roles should be prepared to do it until Sept 1st – although I am not opposed to people swapping in and out.
Rhys (1:16:24) Agree Nadia to find her own replacement in whatever way she thinks best.
Felix (1:18:26) It’s in scope – Circle reps are supposed to appoint a deputy.
Nori (1:19:11) Yes – this is just an extension of that, and making it more permanent until we hold the CCv4 election.
Rhys (1:20:54) Best time for vote would be just before proposal voting starts – everyone is excited when voting opens so it will capture the biggest participation.
Felix (1:22:48) Could ask Twitter initiatives like ADAcafe and LidoNation to encourage voters to participate.
Quasar 1:23:27 Could also offer support to voters trying to register.
Felix (1:24:53) Could we have a Special Edition – half hour town hall, and more time for breakout room discussion?
Kriss (1:25:03) We'll see. I'm sure it could be done; it just hasn't been done before.
Felix (1:26:46) Joey and I will reach out to other town halls so we can coordinate it over Far Eastern, LatAm and Africa Town Hall.
Harris (1:26:59) Start of F9 voting is 11th August
Kriss (1:27:08) So the Town Hall will be 10th August. [Summariser’s note: earlier (39:40) the ATH was agreed to get community input on how to conduct the CCv4 election. But it will be too late to do this the day before voting opens; so the plan has changed without overt discussion to an ATH simply to encourage people to vote.]
Nori (1:27:43) The options are IdeaScale; some other kind of tool; use Jörmungandr outside of the F9 vote; or for sub-circles that feel they are a strong enough community to gove legitimacy, they could hold their own selection process.
Rhys (1:29:36) I could rally SPOs via IOG’s SPO meetup.
Nadia (1:30:00) Could IOG contact everyone who has been a CA in the past and tell them about our process?
Harris (1:30:41) Potentially yes but we need to be careful how we use it [Summariser’s note: presumably for data privacy reasons]
Quasar (1:30:50) We could send everyone an NFT invitation to vote.
Harris (1:31:43) I’d like to research further on using Jörmungandr as a voting mechanism. It would obviously be decoupled from F9, because it would be too late to have it in IdeaScale. We would have to decide the seats and the candidates, load it into Jörmungandr, and run it for a separate vote using the Catalyst app.
Kriss (1:34:25) Jörmungandr is unlikely – there will be a code freeze soon for the F9 vote, so no new features can be added; plus any new features would need design, development and testing. Also Mike’s workload might be too high.
Harris (1:35:07) Voting would have to take place at a different time – but that would mean we may start a new Fund with no official Circle yet.
Rhys (1:35:32) Feels like too much of a risk. Better to do CCv4 vote another way; then bring in Jörmungandr for the next iteration. Also IOG has the Vasil hard fork soon, so will be busy.
Nori (1:36:23) If we put the vote out to the different communities, it will at least be better than what we did last time.
Rhys (1:36:53) Jörmungandr is just a way to manage the vote itself. We still need to bring our respective communities together, regardless of what voting mechanism we use.
Nori (1:37:43) Each rep should discuss with their community what kind of vote would feel legitimate for them.
Harris (1:37:56) We can also decide at some point what the reps are; we might want to add a dRep or Challenge Team seat to Circle. But probably not for CCv4 – keep it simple.
Felix (1:39:12) Governance is unsexy; so reps should not feel pressure to get huge numbers into the conversation. Be happy with input from those who show up.
Nadia (1:39:35) We should write the governance challenge in a simple clear way, to educate people. Avoid the word “governance” because it puts people off.
- All to contribute to a Governance challenge proposal
- Hold an ATH on 11th August – Felix, Rhys, Joey
- Create a Pol.is poll about CCv4 election (task not assigned)
- Harris to find out how possible it is to use Jörmungandr as a voting mechanism, and to bring to Circle meeting on 23rd June
- Create a timeline, working backwards from when CCv4 need to be in place.
- Communicate widely, via Danny, that Circle has a plan for CCv4, and what the timeline is.
- Each rep to discuss with their community about what kind of vote would feel legitimate for them.
Felix (1:41:27) I think we should experiment with opening up the calls, to see what happens; I don’t think more than 7 or 8 people would want to join. It’s not so much about transparency, but empowerment – allowing those interested to come closer to the topic, take part in Chat.
Rhys (1:43:17) When I started livestreaming the CC meetings, I had some good participation, on one call – but it only happened once. Risk of derailing the conversation – it’s already hard enough to reach decisions. But it would be good to livestream the meetings from a Catalyst channel rather than my channel. Quasar, you suggested [in Chat] a Twitter space – I don’t think it’s a good idea because you get confrontational people and not a very good conversation.
Nori (1:45:03) We could use controls like at Town Hall, where people are muted and have cameras off.
Nadia (1:45:19) Could make space at the end of the agenda for community comments – taking care not to derail the meeting. Sub-circle members could attend.
Rhys (1:46:20) We should be prepared to deal with the sexism, racism and trolling that sometimes happens in Town Hall Chat.
Nadia (1:47:05) Adherence to the Code of Conduct should be an expectation of the meeting.
Joey (1:48:24) Further confirmation of how Rapid Funding can be used
Nori (1:50:37) Detail on how sub-circles can make claims on Rapid Funding. In future funds, we encourage every sub-circle to create their own independent rapid funding mechanism, and deal with them however you see fit. Including paying your Circle rep, if you like.
Felix (1:52:33) Alongside this – if you want serous commitment, you have to pay people. The dRep role was publicised as offering a living wage, but it is only $9,000 a year. When setting budgets. IOHK could consult the community and see what their expectations are. I would push for a conversation about this with IOHK.
Harris (1:54:24) What happened to Bullish Dumpling? Felix, is your appointment official? We should update Town Hall slides to reflect who is in the Circle roles.
Felix (1:55:22) Bullish Dumpling announced she was leaving on the CC Slack; CF asked me to step in for the next 3 months, and an official announcement is coming.
Harris (1:56:09) Great. We can continue discussion of CF’s role in this seat. Quasar, can you comment on Dimitri’s position?
Quasar (1:56:36) I’ll confirm with him about the changes to the Rapid Funding. But it’s fine with me. The Catalyst Road Map [i.e. the project that Dimitri asked to use the Rapid Funding for] was Dimitri’s idea from January.
Nori (1:58:51) There is general consensus that we should do it; maybe start with the experiment of opening the next meeting, on 23rd June, with all reps as co-hosts; guests on mute. Perhaps limit Chat at first.
Joey (1:59:34) I want to go on record saying Nadia has been an exemplary Circle rep.
Harris, Rhys: Agree
Harris (2:01:30) There is a Catalyst roadmap already from IOG’s perspective; and it includes a handover to the community. Aligning a community-driven roadmap with our roadmap is a tremendous approach, and is something we should talk more about. But just to put it out there: we do have a roadmap.
Checkout (2:03:28) – each member in turn makes closing remarks.
Meeting ends 2:08:19
CCv3 Working meeting, 16th June 2022 QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc