Working meeting, 22nd Sept 2022
Last updated
Last updated
Felix Weber (CF); Rhys Morgan (SPOs); Steve Lockhart (deputy for Mercy; Funded Proposers); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member).
Kriss Baird (IOG); Nori Nishigaya (CC Admin); JP (CC Admin)
Rhys (37%), Felix (32%), Quasar (14%), Steve (13%), Joey (4%)
No formal check-in. Agenda agreed in the 15 minutes prior to the recording.
- Circle GitHub (Rhys) - CCv4 nominees’ introduction letter (Felix) - CCv4 election checklist (Felix) - Review of Circle After Town Hall (not discussed)
Walk-through of new Circle GitHub Organisation owned by Rhys and worked on by Steve, Rhys and Quasar - see https://github.com/Cardano-Project-Catalyst-Community and https://project-catalyst.gitbook.io/catalyst-circle/ Single point for Circle-related information, and a place for CCv4 members to post weekly reports on their work. Rhys (2:25) It will includes reasons why CC reporting is needed; and template for reports, including rating how well a rep thinks their week went. Felix (7:57) Maintaining a GitHub can be time consuming; how will you do it? (9:36) Also, if you have many editors, it’s not free; it’s around $50 a month. How will it be funded? Rhys (12:14) I will collate the documentation we have, including meeting recordings, Code of Conduct, etc, and add. Will also ask Nori and JP for any content they have.
Note: Nori and JP not present at this meeting, as CC Admin Team have now resigned from taking part in meetings of the current Circle.
Rhys (16:08) For the record, I have a lot of the documentation, but as we are waiting on edits or have not agreed a final version, I am not comfortable putting it up as-is yet.
Felix (17:26) This draft https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iP4uUmA6WDKdQzQJAACzaM3SIimlNw1oLphktj9tvdY/edit?usp=sharing was collated by JP from CCv3-generated content held in various places. It aims to introduce CCv4 in one easy document. Steve (24:21) We should add the requirement for a minimum of 6 months in Catalyst. Felix (26:39) Unfortunately nobody in this meeting has edit rights to the document. Steve (28:57) The document links to another doc which still includes the Circle seats as defined by Catalyst GPS; but these definitions are no longer being used. Felix (30:52) The link is only there temporarily, so we can use it to refer to when adding more nomination criteria as you suggest. I’ll remove the link after.
Note: the document Steve is referring to, which includes the GPS categories, was to this doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wbJl8uJEfCYHQ8ni169aWy53-ONj0sFv4os6XlRhn_4/edit?usp=sharing - this was linked to in the draft doc, but the link has now been removed.
(Note that this version is a QA-DAO-generated copy which is view-only, to preserve it for reference. The original is open to editing by all.) However, note that when nominations for the CCv4 election were finally opened, the nomination form actually did initially include the GPS "categories", by asking nominees to state which of the categories they were most interested in. This was removed after a complaint from a community member.
Joey (32:40) Can we include a link to the nomination form in this doc? And if that is a Google form, whose account will it be held on? Felix (33:27) I will add a link to the nomination form, with a reminder to tell people that if they nominate someone else, they should tell the person. Quasar (33:57) Where will the Google nomination form go to? Who’s collecting them? Felix (34:08) I suggest CC Admin, as they have the experience of doing it, and the structure in place. Quasar (34:31) Using CC Admin adds a layer of suspicion. We should do it openly on Discord, and through the Circle. Felix (34:54) It’s important it’s done by people we can trust – I don’t know why you see CC Admin as a problem. Remember these are community members who stepped up voluntarily to join the CC Admin team. Quasar (35:23) I do not cite them as a public enemy. Steve (35:51) Quasar is not trying to demonise them. But we want Circle to do these things for itself, and we don’t want it to be dependent on people who are funded through Catalyst. Joey (36:27) We could set up a Google account for Circle and build our forms there. Quasar (37:26) We have a Circle account already, through the Gmail that goes to Circle Admin. But there are no previous election forms in that Google Drive. It would be a huge victory for the community to do an election that is not dependent on Google forms. Quasar 38:32 [brief argument - Quasar accuses Felix of disrespecting him, lying, and jeopardising Catalyst.] Joey (39:55) Can we get back on track? Felix (40:00) So there needs to be a conversation about who holds the Google form. But note, the form is only for the nominations, not the election – the election happens on DripDropz. Quasar (40:22) I am concerned that nominees will face the same problem as the last election, where myself and two others identified an issue with the process, and those forms were hidden, and there was no transparency.
Note: the issue referred to here is that during the CCv3 nomination period, Quasar, Dimitri Fernando and one other submitted an application to stand for a single seat as a team. Because it had never been agreed or publicised that this was possible, and because the submission was towards the end of the submissions period so that there was no time discuss it, it was agreed by CCv2 and CC Admin that the nomination should not be accepted.
Joey (42:12) I will create a Google account for the Circle, so we can hold the forms there and give everyone access.
ACTION ITEM: Joey to create a new Google account for Circle.
Felix (42:25) Nadim had already created a checklist of actions leading up to the election , which I’ve used as a draft. (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pdMT126oORd7_jEfYKyBjz3Tq-0TO33iRyQRq60lNrA/edit?usp=sharing – again, this is a QA-DAO-generated copy which is view-only.) In the “when” column, “D” is the day voting opens, so D-20 is 20 days before that, so we just have to define the date of “D” to build the whole schedule. It refers to “Governance Day”, which in the past was the date the vote took place – but now that voting is on DripDropz, “Governance Day” would be a public event, or series of events, where the nominees are presented to the community. We will need to invest considerable time to check the nominations – to see that they meet the criteria, and to ensure that anyone nominated by another person agrees to stand. We also need a document to instruct people how to vote on DripDropz, which is done already. And “announcement of confirmed nominations across Town Halls” should also include social media etc.
Note: this version, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fy5T4-KaqyYTnmdN9MCLj89WxF33R8MDerxsfdQlgkM/edit?usp=sharing , created by Quasar, includes suggested actual dates as he saw it at the time. It also includes additional tasks such as writing an election report; it’s unclear if these were agreed by the rest of Circle.
Steve (46:23) Where are we in the process now? I think when IO and CF sign off on it all, we are free to start pushing it ourselves. Rhys (49:08) The main sticking point is sign-off from IOG and CF; including signoff on whether CCv4 will be funded, so we can announce it. Joey (51:08) I think we should just move forward on the assumption that CCv4 will be funded. Rhys (52:09) I agree; ideally we should send the form out tomorrow, as next Thursday is the absolute deadline. Felix (53:21) I agree. So the introduction document needs a tweak.} Quasar (54:23) Can we try to get the form out today? Steve (54:44) We need sign-off from IO first. Quasar (54:48) I don’t think we do – they are expecting us to do this ourselves. Rhys (54:56) We’ve waited long enough - 2 months - for confirmation from IOG of Circle funding. Quasar (55:10) They are waiting for a formal written request from us. [Note: It's unclear where this assertion comes from; it wasn't an action item in any previous Circle meeting, so possibly was agreed outside meetings.] But I think we can say they have sort of agreed to fund it. Rhys (55:32) Yes, in the last call with Kriss, he said the accountability model would be sufficient. We didn’t have formal agreement from him but he said it’s enough for him to get agreement from IOG. But as he isn’t here, we can’t ask him directly. Steve (56:04) And that, to me, is a problem. We can’t put this stuff out on our own – it needs to go out in sync from Circle, IOG and CF so it looks valid. Rhys (56:58) I agree – today is too soon. We need a definite answer from Kriss; I think tomorrow is reasonable.
(NB not on agenda agreed before the meeting?)
Quasar (58:54) We could make a short video now, using Zoom, to announce the opening of nominations. Let’s not find excuses or blockers unless they’re absolute. Steve (59:28) I don’t want to be in a video. Rhys (1:00:45) What’s next on the agenda? I’ve got “Review of the After Town Hall”. Quasar (1:02:00) I don’t want to do that review quite yet, because we still have to decide on the nominee statements and the forms. Felix (1:04:56) We should invite people to send a video as well as a written statement? Rhys (1:03:15) On reflection, the nominee form just needs basic contact info, not a statement – the candidates send their statement later, when they are contacted, because they might need time to think about it. Also, people can nominate someone else, so they would not be able to add a statement for another person. Felix (1:13:00) Do we want to add additional criteria for nominees? Is the list correct? Rhys (1:14:13) Some of them are not essential – like "Solid presence in Catalyst community Discord". Obviously it would be better to have someone who’s an active community member in Discord, but it’s not essential. But being flexible for meeting times is a must-have. [Note: following this discussion, the introduction letter has been edited to group criteria into "must-have" and "nice-to-have".] Felix (1:15:45) So the only thing we need to add is the initial nomination form, then we can push this out officially. Rhys (1:15:58) And the nomination form is just personal contact information. Joey (1:16:35) I agree – even after people are nominated, there is still time for us to get confirmation from Kriss, and for people to decide to continue with their nomination or not. But it’s interesting that following our After Town Hall, it didn’t look as though we have anyone volunteering to stand. Quasar (1:17:16) I think we did; there are people that are considering it. Felix (1:17:19) So on which spreadsheet do we gather the details of nominees? Rhys (1:18:24) Are we going to host it ourselves, or is CC Admin going to? Felix (1:18:31) I think the decision was that we do it ourselves. Quasar (1:19:12) So in 2 minutes, we are going to record the video announcement, is that right? Rhys (1:19:40) OK, we’ll do it now.
No checkout, as the meeting moves straight to recording an announcement video. Recording ends 1:20:33
Note: A short video was recorded to announce that nominations had opened, and was shared, but it's unclear where or how widely.
ATH – After Townhall, the breakout rooms after the regular Wednesday TownHall meeting
CATH – Catalyst Africa Town Hall
Catalyst School – https://thecatalyst.school
CC – Catalyst Circle
CF – Cardano Foundation
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
CIP – Cardano Improvement Proposal https://cips.cardano.org
CTC - Catalyst Technical Council, a proposed body that will be appointed by IOG to be involved in bicameral governance alongside the Catalyst community.
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
DIDs – Decentralised identifiers
ETH – Eastern Town Hall
Gimbalabs - https://gimbalabs.com/gimbalgrid
GPS or Catalyst GPS – an F8 Catalyst funded proposal led by current Circle member Tomi https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/398299 which seeks to reorganise Catalyst.
IOG – Input/Output Global
LatAm – the Catalyst community in Latin America. Comprises a regular Town Hall and several other community initiatives.
NFT – non-fungible token
PA - Proposal Assessor, a role open to anyone in Catalyst, to assess proposals in each funding round (previously called CA, Community Advisor).
QA-DAO – Quality Assurance Distributed Autonomous Organisation
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).
Voltaire – the next phase on the Cardano roadmap to decentralisation