Working meeting, 8th Sept 2022
Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Quasar (ADA Holders subcircle member); Felix Weber (CF); Steve Lockhart (deputy for Mercy; Funded Proposers); Kriss Baird (IOG).
Quasar (26%), Kriss (17%), Felix (17%), Nori (16%), Steve (12%), Joey (12%)
Announcements (1:23) - Conversation with Emurgo about increasing their involvement with Catalyst (Felix); - Idea heard in the community of a “Catalyst reboot” (Quasar); - Ariob incubator startups. https://startupxs.com/accelerator/ariob-incubator-of-startups/ (Kriss); - DripDropz ATH (“Governance Jam” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt0Efbtngnc) where Kriss presented some slides at the end on his own thoughts on GPS and George's funding categories; would like to discuss next meeting. (Kriss)
Agenda (7:44) Item added: idea of “Circle” shifting to “working group”. Because several members now are unelected, causing confusion and pushback, should we officially say that Circle version 3 is over, and these meetings are a working group to set up the CC 4 elections? (Felix)
Several speakers identify tasks that still need to be done:
- Define the budget/compensation for CCv4 reps Felix (11:21) - Define how we collect platform statements, where do we publish them, and how we announce things Nori (11:44) - Define the voting process on DripDropz, e.g. whether people have one vote or several Joey (13:25) - Agree dates (those on the “Election protocol" doc are no longer accurate); assign the tasks to people Kriss (14:51) - Create nominations Google form; announce opening of nominations, together with any relevant links. Felix (15:12) - Confirm that tasks in the “Election Protocol” spreadsheet above are definitely correct Kriss (20:01). - Have someone to drive the election admin – either one of Circle, or volunteers from the community Nori (22:38) - Agree the accountability model that will be used for CCv4 reps (Kriss, 27:48)
On funding to manage the election: Quasar (23:58) The General ADA Holders have some funding left that could be used. Felix (24:09) Bridge Builders [via the F7 proposal “Governance Events” https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/382705] could contribute some too.
ACTION ITEM: Kriss to write a blog post on Circle elections: to comprise a reminder of what Circle is; info on what has been achieved over the last year; and details of how the CCv4 elections will run. IOG tech writers and Legal will need to sign it off before it goes up, but this can hopefully be done by next week. ACTION ITEM: Felix to lead on Election admin, and engage people via Swarm to create a nomination form, and set up the governance event.
Summariser's note: this may be contradicted later in the meeting, when the group appears to agree to use the nomination form from CCv3 with minor changes.
If Circle are paid via a parameter change, IOG has said it needs them to be accountable, so these two items are connected and are therefore discussed together.
Kriss (30:20) It should not be too onerous; and not be a monthly progress report like Funded Proposers do; but there should be a way for Circle reps to evidence activities that take place outside of these meetings so the community can track them. Perhaps an activity log. For example, if a rep does a Twitter space, they should be able to record it and point to the link. Quasar (32:02) Peter created a template for Twitter spaces, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IUDuUKknDgDj-wxNiKajU_M7aItIVIwBaRHm6Zj0GMk/edit It could be used for other meetings too. Nori (37:00) In CCv2 we used a form for reps to give a brief summary of their activities in the past fortnight. Could be reinstated as a tool. Summarising and recording takes time; reps are leaning on a lot of community volunteer support to e.g. document regional THs.
Quasar (38:33) I suggest we put Circle compensation into a multi-sig wallet; so 3 to 5 people can sign off before funds are distributed. Joey (40:49) Recommend we use Treasury Guild to help manage funds.
Steve (42:20) On accountability, one-on-one conversations are valid parts of the work as well as group activities; I think reps should log them. Quasar (42:40) The more one-to-ones, the more information spreads; but it is tricky to decide which ones to record, and how. Some people may not want to be recorded. Tools like Obsidian and HackMD are useful; reps could start keeping a journal or diary to share.
Joey (44:10) It’s important to keep it simple, and reps should complete a form during the meeting or immediately after, so it’s fresh. (46:36) A form, plus what we do already in the Town Halls and After Town Halls, should be enough for CCv4 to be accountable for what they are doing. Kriss (46:58) But that’s just saying that you did it. You have to prove that you did. Quasar (47:13) Circle should not only sense problems, but also manage the solutions, via paying bounties. So 3,000 ADA per seat is not enough; there should be additional money to pay for solutions. Steve (48:25) If we are taking a holacratic approach, we should ask people in Wada, in Latin America and in Asia to form Circles themselves in order to talk to this Circle. Quasar (49:42) Catalyst United [the PA/VPA Discord server) uses a process for bounties that could be adopted. Joey (50:31) To check if a remote employee has done the work, my approach is to set some goals with the employee, and if those goals are met, I know they’ve done their work. Maybe Circle should take this evidence-based approach. Steve (51:34) The nominee’ platforms are how reps are held accountable as individuals. But we should lead nominees towards where *we* see Catalyst community governance going.
Summariser's note – On this last point, it’s unclear on what basis this partly unelected group could steer CCv4. In previous meetings, the plan seemed to be that CCv4 nominees will propose their own approaches; and if the community likes their view, it will elect them. At this point it is unclear whether this current group intends to direct CCv4 or not.
Kriss (54:07) There only needs to be one place where the Circle reps’ work is logged; it doesn’t need to be more. Quasar (54:16) On the Cardano forum. Steve (55:31) On the GitBook where the rest of the Circle documentation goes. Felix (56:43) Documentation is a lot of work, and perhaps Circle should not document themselves. We should approach QA-DAO and CGO for help, because this is what they do. Joey (58:22) Agree. And we should include documentation in our budget when we think about funding Circle. Nori (59:04) Kriss has posted in Chat a suggestion for a Circle Activity Log https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RVMqa5EB7n3ahycG9usc2O_0h26SGLYZ/edit#gid=1687497442 Kriss (1:00:30) I could get it set up so that the “activity name” is a drop-down. But let’s ask if this replicates anything QA-DAO is already using.
Point of information: The Funded Proposer Subcircle has been doing something similar since June - see https://catalyst-circle.gitbook.io/funded-proposers-hub/the-funded-proposers-sub-circle/funded-proposers-sub-circle-activity-log.
Felix (1:02:36) Circle used to do is a stand-up at the start of each meeting, which was effective: "What have you done last week? What are you going to do next week? Is there anything blocking you?" Felix (1:03:33) It’s hard to know what to document and what not to. Nori (1:04:23) It’s best to summarise the important things, so people can get an overview. Felix (1:04:45) We should try out the process of logging our activity ourselves before we ask CCv4 to do it. We should also bring back the Circle Stand-up at the beginning of each meeting. And we should each record a short wrap-up via Loom or similar on what we have done. But the problem then is – where do we share them? Circle really needs a platform where we can bring these things together. Joey (1:06:39) The Prioritised Problems board allows the community to view and comment. We could add another area where reps can log what they’ve done. Nori (1:07:09) We could look at other tools, but most cost money. We do have the Prioritised Problems board, and can extend it to track other things, or create a side-board. Quasar (1:09:02) Github and Google Sheets are free; but the work is not. So we’re back to the funding, which is needed to deliver the nomination form and start the election. Joey (1:10:29) The CCv3 nomination form is still there, but CC Admin need to enable access.
ACTION ITEM: Nori to enable access to old CCv3 nomination form as a basis for creating the CCv4 form. ACTION ITEM: Felix to approach QA-DAO and CGO for input on how to document and audit Circle reps' work. ACTION ITEM: This group to road-test Kriss’s activity log.
Joey (1:11:27) Lynn Gummow from Cardano Foundation has a HR and legal background; could approach her for input. Quasar (1:12:55) We should address sections 5 to 9, as they’re directly related to defining expectations for CCv4. For example – should reps be allowed to submit proposals? And how do we deal with Code of Conduct violations? Joey (1:14:31) If Circle reps cannot submit proposals, it would limit who is likely to stand. Steve (1:16:07) I think if people are on Circle, they should take a break from proposing for 6 months to focus on Circle. Joey (1:17:31) I believe the conflict last time was when Circle reps submitted proposals intended to benefit themselves.
Point of information: Issues on Circle reps and proposals in the past have actually been:
Should a Circle member submit a proposal about Circle itself (e.g. to pay Circle) without the agreement of their Circle colleages?
Should a Circle member use their Circle platform to promote their own personal proposals that are not Circle-related?
How should Circle members decide and agree what is a “Circle proposal”, submitted on behalf of Circle?
Joey (1:18:13) We're all experimenting; let's see if anyone stands for Circle if there is a restriction on submitting proposals.
No formal checkout, as meeting is over time. Meeting ends: 1:21:15
CATH – Catalyst Africa Town Hall
CC – Catalyst Circle
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 8th Sept 2022 QA-DAO verbatim transcript.doc