F8 Meeting 3 -8th September 2022

In Draft


Agenda link

GitBook Issue



Allison Fromm


Kenric Nelson


Matthias Sieber


Phil Khoo


Thorsten Pottebaum


Tevo Saks


Vanessa Cardui


Andre Diamond


Miroslav Rajh




Stephen Whitenstall



Community Governance Oversight (CGO)

F7 Ideascale Proposal

F8 Ideascale proposal


Proposed Agenda

Action points from previous meetings:

Pay Allison $75 for Town Hall Slides X 2 ($150) in September 2022

Stephen W $500 for Project Management for August 2022

Pay Kenric remainder of the research budget - Aug 2022

Last meeting we were looking to add something to F9 IOG survey (Phil) - did we? - in theory yes but depends on form, scope, data protection

We missed adding something to Danny’s newsletters

We agreed to discuss async the process to build public register of parameters - didn’t happen yet

1. F8 CGO Treasury

Andre & Miroslav - updates on Treasury setup, member payments, costs & expenses.

Google Sheet

We will receive $6860 on Monday, 12th September 2022. Then we can pay for all TH slides and project management. And partially pay for Treasury management.

Items left to pay for CGO8

Reports, Retros, Surveys

Prep of F9 proposal - a F9 proposal was not submitted (no appropriate fund)

Should this be F10 proposal?

Town Hall Slides, Treasury Management. Project Management

All meeting attendance is already paid

Process for paying deliverables

Should we develop a process for paying deliverables?

Allison - Splitting equally is easier

Tevo - we estimate delivery time of how much tasks cost. Everyone who contributes shares how much time they spent, if no information, the estimated cost will be shared equally between participants of specific task.

Vanessa - Should we split distributions between high level epics/projects/themes or we take reward each deliverable differently.

Community Distribution Model

Phil - community distribution model - equal split and can choose to redistribute your share to others

Kenric - baseline = split evenly, then specific tasks - bonus pool? for those who put in extra effort. Decide this using Phil’s method.

Phil - easier to just pay everyone equal and then reallocate

Phil - this doesn’t change what’s already allocated

Andre - pay treasury in full this time, and then divide the rest between all of us Rename it “deliverables”

Leave it with Treasury until such time as deliverables are done? AGREED

F8 Closing Report payment

Need to set aside money for closing report too

F7 proposal final payment

F7 deliverables payments is what is outstanding

Pay Stephen for close out report and project management

$840 in wallet now

$6,366 to come on Monday, 12th September 2022

F8 CGO Scope & Deliverables

Challenge Setting

What is the scope of F8 Challenge Setting oversight ?

We’ve agreed George and Phil are working on this, but what exactly are its deliverable(s) likely to be?

Do we need to consider how to maintain (and be seen to maintain) independence of oversight, given George is so strongly involved with working to change the Challenge-Setting process?

George - conflict of interest is something he’s aware of. Meeting w Kriss on Fri - there will be changes soon. Whatever approach they want to take, will communicate it w CGO. Survey to gain community feedback on what IOG want to do?

Tevo: this is best oversight we could have - let’s not add barriers.

George : I do the work, oversight comes from everyone else.

What is the deliverable?? A survey? The proposals George has in? Analysis of discussion e.g in Telegram?

To be discussed next meeting after George’s meeting with Kriss Baird. Communicate that this discussion has been had, and the oversight will be to engage with or survey the community - sentiment analysis.

Thorsten - who is enacting changes to the challenge setting process? It should follow a governance process in respect of this proposed change. How will this be enacted ? Through a vote ? Also what is the intent, and how do we measure if it is achieved? A survey probably won’t cover that. Probably a retrospective on comparing the intended outcome to the recognised outcome after a period of time.

Vanessa - This is obviously a parameters change. So it overlaps with what we're looking at in terms of parameter changes in general. Particularly in terms of what Thorsten just said about who is enacting the change, and do people know what the purpose of it is?

Kenric - not every community change HAS to be done by vote.Conversations, surveys etc are already happening - that’s also a decentralised process.

Allison - agree, it’s not always about a vote. How much surveying, conversation etc is enough to create legitimacy?? to protect the implementer from accusations of a decision that is not representative

Thorsten - agree, it’s not clearly defined how decision making is done if not via a vote. It becomes hard to determine if what is happening is within the parameter of controlling decision making process. Who decides if a vote is needed or not.

Phil - Dripdropz ATH last night - building a petition module to their voting structure, which fills some of the role we are talking about. An interesting possibility.

F10 looks likely to be another odd one: developer-heavy, and excluding much of the other work people do. Should we be additionally looking to maintain oversight of what sort of effect this is having on the community, the work that is done and the proposals that are getting funded?

Last updated