Working meeting, 6th October 2022
Rhys Morgan (SPOs); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Steve Lockhart (deputy for Mercy; Funded Proposers); Felix Weber (CF); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member); Kriss Baird (IOG. Note: Kriss able to be present for only 30 minutes due to a family commitment).
Kriss (32%), Rhys (20%), Felix (14%), Steve (14%), Quasar (12%), Joey (8%)
Check-in (0:26) Announcements (2:20): Quasar (2:26) Announcing that Kriss and possibly Harris should be here later to discuss parameters for F9 and F10, which will be important for groups working on improving Catalyst. Felix (3:30) Yesterday, landmark ruling in Europe: the Council of the European Union approved Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13198-2022-INIT/en/pdf Final ruling on the bill from European Parliament will be Oct 10th.
Update from SPO meeting (7:15) Request for IOG response on a Circle member's behaviour (8:06) Catalyst Fund 9 Parameters (19:00) Budget for Town Halls and Subcircles (40:48) Clarity on CCV4 voting process (56:49) Review of CCv4 nomination form (1:00:31) Proposed timeline for CCv4 election (1:11:14) Election marketing & engagement (1:24:17) Onboarding CCv4; CCv3 retrospective (1:32:39)
Rhys (7:15) SPOs unhappy because waiting for key parameter changes – removal of minimum fee, to enable even small stakepools to be competitive. Been told “still looking into it” 18 months after change was promised.
Kriss (8:06) Stephen Whitenstall has asked for a public response from IOG about the behaviour of a Circle member https://forum.cardano.org/t/why-is-iog-catalyst-platforming-someone-who-continuously-bullies-misrepresents-and-trolls-their-peers/108508/1 To be discussed in formal meeting next week. I don’t think it is necessarily IOG’s role to deal with it; Circle has a code of conduct that we’re meant to be following, so we should handle it as adults. Steve (9:49) People should be free to make errors and should not be banished when they abuse others. If someone is abusive to you., you can ignore them. I find it distasteful that a victim should try to bring it to the forefront. Also, it is old news. Felix (12:27) But this is not just about one person – 6 groups, who were very engaged in Catalyst, have been harmed. They have each tried to “handle it as adults”, talk directly to the person, over the last 4 months; but to no avail, so it has caused many very active people to feel disempowered and to disengage. We have a code of conduct – if we are unable to do something if a red line is crossed, who can? Kriss (14:25) It does deserve attention and shouldn’t be brushed over, and we haven’t got time to address it properly today. I apologise for arriving late to this meeting; I had the wrong meeting link. Rhys (14:50) Without CC Admin organising the calls, it’s hard to co-ordinate them.
Note: the CC Admin team is one of the groups that have chosen to disengage from Circle partly as a result of the bullying issue currently being discussed.
Steve (15:05) They [the victims] are free and sovereign, so if they remove themselves from this community because they have been abused, that is their choice. The work will go on without them.
ACTION ITEM: this issue to be discussed next week.
see https://hackmd.io/@zaRRiZ6-RuKUOMNklY0lVg/B1kbsPmQo Kriss (19:01) These are the F9 parameters; they provide us with the boundaries of how we set up a Fund campaign. They are:
- Parameter on whether it’s private or public voting
- The challenges and their budgets
- A parameter on whether or not there is a proposal submission fee; this has been discussed in the past to block placeholder proposals
- The amount of funds under control, and how funds are transferred
- Distribution dates for rewards – obviously, these were pushed quite a lot later for F9 than the document states, but note that this document is written before the start of a Fund, and we don’t make retroactive changes to it
- Mechanism to deal with the effects of price fluctuation
- Broad goals for the Fund, and a process for setting them. I anticipate that goal-setting will become even more important beyond F10 – see some of the comments I have made is spaces such as DripDropz ATH “Governance Jam” https://youtu.be/lt0Efbtngnc
- Maximum number of proposals that can be put on a ballot
- how PAs are registered;
- how the proposals get registered, in terms of the vote plan - In future, the intention is that this will be ratified and signed by the Committee; see the Treasury paper, that outlines some of the Committee mechanisms.
- difference between the actual amount of ADA that you need to vote (450), and the amount we say you need (500) . If you register your ability to vote via CLI, you can do it with 450.
- Registration and snapshot timeframes, agreed voting period, and key dates for the fund campaign
- The fund ID
- How voting power is minted - one ADA, one voting token; so there is actually a token that sits behind Jormungandr.
- Proposal logic; difference of yes/no votes needed. There may be some changes to that in Fund 10.
- Acceptance threshold - you need at least 1% of voting power to be accepted, and there needs to be a differential of 15% more yeses than noes.
- How rewards for advisors, voters, referrers and challenge teams are configured and calculated. I’m working on Challenge Team rewards, because with the introduction of milestone-based funding, challenge teams may be doing additional work. I should be able to discuss this next week. Referrer rewards is also likely to change for F10 – we already have a high volume of proposals, so perhaps we no longer need referrers.
- An amount for contingency.
- Details of when we put together the vote plan, and how this gets spun up into Jormungandr and the voting app.
- The parameterised, hard coded dates for the voting app.
Kriss (29:56) The parameters for F10 are being worked on as we speak; there will be some changes, which Harris will be communicating quite soon.
Steve (30:22) Who will evaluate milestones for a technical project like Daedalus Turbo? [see https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/414953]. Kriss (31:39) Agree, we need technically capable individuals to do it. For Daedalus Turbo specifically, Alex [Sierkov, the proposer of Daedalus Turbo] and his tech lead, Heinrich, met with Kevin Hammond, Alex Apeldoorn https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alex-apeldoorn-27886321, IOG's head of wallets; Harris, and I. I recommended to Alex that his first milestone should be a research feasibility sprint. Note that while IOG will be reviewing milestones, all statement of milestone documents are public so anyone can review them. Steve (34:14) For me, it highlights the need for some sort of assessment when a proposal enters the process. Kriss (34:36) Agree; but it’s hard to tell who is capable of doing that. At present, all PAs are treated equally, but in future maybe we need to be able to distinguish experts from community assessors who are not technically capable.
Joey (35:44) I was hoping the parameters discussion would clearly define how CCv4 will be rewarded. Kriss (36:06) No; Circle v4 rewards will be part of F10 parameters, not F9. Steve (36:25) We’d like to know, so we can inform nominees. Kriss (36:32) I will try to bring Harris to next week’s meeting so he can go through F10 parameters if they are ready to be shared. But you have my word that F10 parameters will include rewards for Circle.
Felix (37:12) Can the F10 parameters be changed at this stage, how will the community be involved in any changes? What does IOG need from the community in order to have this? Kriss (38:00) If F9 was a watershed moment, then F10 will be drawing a line in the sand. After that, F11 and beyond, will be a more mature process, and a more collaborative and consultative approach, to setting priorities and deciding what direction Catalyst should go in. The period between F10 and F11 is when I believe we should look at what we need to do, as a community of stakeholders, to make the necessary changes.
Quasar (40:48) Is there flexibility to include in the funding for CCv4, additional funding the regional Town Halls that were not funded in F9, and other important community infrastructure? Also, on the timing – I would prefer the community to come together before the period between F10 and F11 to agree on changes. Kriss (44:02) I would love to see lots of community discussion in the next 4 weeks – but we need to be mindful that F10 will launch at the end of October, so there isn’t time to make significant changes. Steve (45:09) Yes, and we are hoping that CCv4 will be engaged in making those changes, more than our version of Circle has been able to do. We don’t have the mandate, because few people voted for this Circle, and because some of us are on Circle without being elected – but if more people vote for CCv4, they will have a mandate. Quasar (46:06) Is the budget for CCv4 set in stone at $90,000 for 6 months?
Note: this refers to the suggested budget of $1,000 /month per Circle seat, plus $1,000 /month for 2 additional subcircle roles per seat - total $3,000 per month - x 5 seats, total $15,000, x 6 months, total $90,000.
Kriss (46:32) I don’t think it’s $90k. My understanding was, it’s $1,000 per month for 5 seats for 6 months, which is $30k. Quasar (46:45) It was my understanding that each seat will get a facilitator and a scribe as well. Kriss (46:52) The process for appointing the facilitator and scribe is the part that is unclear. Do the Circle reps just invite people to join their team? Rhys (47:39) Yes; because the 5 seats are open, and do not have predetermined communities that their subcircles will come from. Kriss (48:06) OK, if it’s the intention that each Circle rep will decide who will be working closely with them, and allocate funding, we can pilot that. Yes, we can go ahead with that approach, and that’s what we will build into the F10 parameters. But we have to have some reservations around people just picking their mates – the community has to be able to see the legitimacy in their approach. Rhys (49:02) It’s important that these roles are paid; it’s evident how important these roles are now that CC Admin are no longer around and we have to organise meetings ourselves. Joey (50:03) I agree; we need to fund the subcircles, so the Circle rep can focus on community engagement. I also think it’s difficult for admin tasks and communication tasks, such as subcircles, Town Halls, treasury, etc, to be funded by proposals – they need permanent funding, because they create the foundation for longevity. Also I’m glad we’re talking about community involvement. I have said for a long time that we need more of a handshake between the community, and IOG/CF. The community are like consultants – we don’t have the power to make final decisions, IOG does that, but we can influence the decision if we are invited to the table. Rhys (52:51) I think it’s important that these admin roles are not permanent roles, so the people doing them cannot gain control over Catalyst. We need to constantly have new people coming in and changing the way things are done every few months.
Rhys (56:49) For clarity - the CCv4 vote will be plutocratic, i.e. one ADA, one vote; and you need a minimum 5 ADA in your wallet to be eligible to vote. I mistakenly thought it was one wallet, one vote – should we explore that possibility, or just continue like this? Joey/all (57:41) discussion of transaction fees on DripDropz platform. Joey (59:35) In future votes, I’m not opposed to DripDropz keeping the transaction fees to compensate them for their work. Steve (1:00:12) I We'll see how many more times they have to do it. don't think they'll have to do it many more times, if at all.
Note: it's unclear what Steve means by thie above, but he seems to be suggesting that there will not be a Circle election in future for whatever reason.
See “Introduction to Circle” document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iP4uUmA6WDKdQzQJAACzaM3SIimlNw1oLphktj9tvdY/edit?usp=sharing
Felix (1:00:38) Let’s not use the phrase “human sensor array” as some people find it confusing; and the nomination form should ask nominees how they plan to measure and evidence their work on Circle. Steve (1:02:00) Last week, we agreed the process where reps will record their work, so I think this question is superfluous. Rhys (1:02:23) We could ask instead how they plan to reach out to their community and measure their engagement.
Note: in practice, this question seems to have been misunderstood by some CCv4 candidates as asking how they would measure their own level of engagement in Catalyst, rather than how they will measure the extent to which they, as a Circle rep, will measure their level of engagement with the community they aim to represent.
Quasar (1:03:11) And let’s add a link to the form they will be using to record their work, so they can see it, since that’s the process IOG have agreed.
Note: the group now searches for and has difficulty locating the Accountability Model document – this may be the doc that is being searched for https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ApF3uYSHRvFsuZ4FbSdU0rVPbN8GOR0YkbqBp9uE1kE/edit?usp=sharing,
although Felix at 1:08:19 mentions that it should include information on the use of Dework, so there may be a more current version than this.
Rhys (1:08:29) This is what was approved to get agreement from IOG to reward Circle. But we don’t need to manage Dework for CCv4, so they can set up their own Dework server. Felix (1:09:03) Let’s offer this (i.e. the Accountability Model) as ideas for how they could build an effective system themselves. Rhys (1:09:15) Yes, it’s just examples and suggestions. Quasar (1:09:25) We need to add some templates for some of these; and we will connect this to the Project Catalyst Discord server, Dework, and this GitHub [i.e. the new GitHub organisation created by Rhys and Quasar].
Note: there is a lack of clarity about whether the accountability structure is definitive (i.e. that it was agreed by IOG in order to secure a parameter change to reward Circle, so it cannot be significantly altered) or whether it is just an idea (i.e. Cv4 is not bound by it, and can build their own system).
There also appears to be disagreement about whether CCv3 will set up a Dework server for CCv4 to use (Quasar at 1:09:25 suggests yes; others have said no).
Note: at 1:09:25, Quasar in effect suggests that the entire CCv4 accountability system will use linked tools for which he as an individual is administrator (i.e.the Project Catalyst Discord server; the new Circle GitHub Organisation; and a Dework server that he offers to create for CCv4 to use). This may not be in line with best practice in decentralised governance, whether or not Quasar is himself elected to CCv4.
Felix (1:11:41) Proposed timeline is: - nominations opened on October 1st and will be open until Oct 12th; - send out the email on the 12th to all nominees and ask for platform statements; - closing date for platform statements Oct 15th; - add info to Cardano Forum and DripDropz platform Oct 17th; - voting could start a mimimum of 10 to 15 days later. Felix (1:15:09) We should mention on the email we send to candidates that their statements will be posted publicly. Rhys (1:15:22) We should include a tick box for people to consent to it being publicly shared. Joey (1:16:14) Also a tick box to say they have read all the requirements to be a Circle rep, and they agree.
Quasar (1:18:31) October will be a very busy month, and I believe Fund 10 will start in November. Given this, should we ask for one more week before the CCv4 election? CNFTCon and Rare Bloom [conferences taking place in October] could be a chance to get more engagement for Circle. Felix (1:21:54) No – we are almost there, let’s not create more delays. Steve (1:22:13) Agree with not delaying. I think the community is already very engaged. Joey (1:23:19) It feels like it’ll still be going on when I’m 80! Rhys (1:23:39) Agree we need to push ahead with it.
Felix (1:24:17) Shall we add to the email to nominees that, if they have questions, they can ask us on the Catalyst Community Discord, as that is probably the most neutral? And then all of us should look out there for any questions? [several people voice agreement] Rhys (1:25:51) Agreed. Quasar (1:26:14) I will create a forum there, to keep all the questions in one place.
ACTION ITEM: Quasar to create a forum for questions on Catalyst Community Discord. ACTION ITEM: All to engage there to answer any questions from candidates. ACTION ITEM: Joey to send email out to all nominees individually, inviting them to confirm their nomination and submit a platform statement.
Quasar (1:28:14) Shall we create some flyers about the election? Could Rhys put funds into it? [i.e. from Rapid Funding Mechanism] Rhys (1:28:54) Agree – I will create it over the weekend, then we all post it on Twitter and other social media. Steve (1:32:04) Should nominees be free to tag CCv3 members, and we will share their promo material? Or should we keep our hands off and remain neutral?
Note: this question from Steve was not discussed any further, and there was no decision.
ACTION ITEM: Rhys to create and share a flyer about the election dates. ACTION ITEM: Joey to add candidates' names and platform statements to the Cardano Forum.
Felix (1:32:39) In previous Circles there was usually some transition time, and the old Circle introduced the new ones to the role. Is this something we can do as well? There would be no rewards for it – it was funded in CCv3 [note: this was due to a funded proposal by Allison Fromm, the CCv2 General ADA Holders rep] but there is no budget for mentorship here. Joey (1:33:11) I think mentoring was very useful, and would be important for the next Circle. Steve (1:33:53) We could have an initial meeting with CCv4 as a group, then if they need further help they could ask. Rhys (1:34:18) Agree; there is some onboarding needed to Dework and GitHub. But perhaps we don’t all need to be present. Felix (1:34:50) We once invited all previous Circle reps to a call, to get their insights. But a call is not always the best way to get high-quality insights – maybe we could instead have a Circle survey, just for past Circle reps. Joey (1:36:13) Before the election, we should go through the Prioritised Problems board, and tidy it up for the new reps, so they are not inheriting issues that cannot be resolved. Rhys (1:37:00) We will not be using that specific board in future. [i.e. because it is hosted on the GitHub Organisation that was run by CC Admin] So we should review it, and transfer anything relevant into a new board. But ultimately, CCv4 will have to make the decision about what is still relevant. Felix (1:37:50) It would be useful for us as a group to have call as a retrospective. Maybe focus on our achievements, as this is something we haven’t really identified.
ACTION ITEM: retrospective session to be held as one of CCv3’s final regular meetings.
No formal checkout, as meeting is over time. Brief closing comments from Steve and Rhys. Recording ends 1:42:18
CATH – Catalyst Africa Town Hall
CC – Catalyst Circle
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
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
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.
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 working meeting 6th Oct 2022 QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc