F7 Meeting 3 - 7th April 2022

Community Governance Oversight Meeting #3 - 1500 UTC, Thursday, 7th April 2022

Agenda

Link to Agenda

Attendees:

Minutes

Apologies

Information

Community Governance Oversight (CGO)

F7 Ideascale Proposal - https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/383517

F8 Ideascale Proposal - https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/398225

GitBook - https://quality-assurance-dao.gitbook.io/community-governance-oversight/

Agenda

1 Audit Circle Treasury

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

  • 01:06 Andre - there are several new ADA Due labels on the project board; this is yet to be resolved/discussed.

  • 02:40 Stephen/Andre - this month’s funding has been paid, so next 3 meetings will be paid now.

Action - Treasury to pay members for the next 3 meetings

2 Town Hall Slides

Allison - Updates on Town Hall Slides

5 minutes

Decision : The TH Slide work (Allison) should be charged for from CGO Budget - All

  • 03:03 Allison - the Town Hall slides were shared on April 6th. There were many discussions about decentralized governance, principles and immediate actions.

  • 03:52 Allison - trying to make the whole thing clearer to the community (people involved don't understand everything).

  • 04:15 Stephen - it is necessary to update people on what is being done, what the philosophies of it are and any major announcements on governance processes.

  • 04:47 Vanessa/Allison/Phil - People often ask what the group is and how it came together (at first, through voluntary action, and then they were financed) so it is useful to clarify this.

  • 8:15 Stephen - we should take some money from the budget to pay Allison for doing Town Hall slides each week (Agreed)

Decision principle - Ask if there are no objections

Decision : Project management (Stephen) should be charged as well but there is insufficient budget - a budget line was included in the F8 proposal. Will put it down to experience for now.

3 Fund 8 - CGO Proposal

Hold over item for future updates

  • 09:20 Stephen - Fund 8 proposal is currently in the evaluation review (VCA) stage, so no further updates yet.

Stephen - The Fund CGO Proposal is in the vCA stage (https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/398225)

4 Recruit secretary to support CGO

Allison / Stephen / Vanessa

  • The transcription of meetings by a new secretary, Livia Corcino, is also being tested.

Livia Corcino to summarize this week from a meeting recording.

5 F7 CGO Scope & Deliverables

All members - Progress under each scope area : 25 minutes

5.1 Challenge Setting - 10 minutes

Scope : Including community contributed challenges and the creation and expanding role of challenge teams - Stephen

Deliverables : TBA - Need to consider approach to CT survey

  • 10:00 Stephen - Our deliverables on the subject of Challenge Settings need to be defined. For now I attended the Challenge Team roundtable and started documenting that.

  • 10:55 - Phil - Ro’s ATH session last week: he has essentially built an Ideascale replacement. Part of the Challenge Setting issues is the limitations of Ideascale; so there could be process changes soon.

  • 11:27 Stephen - from an oversight perspective, what should we be reporting on/surveying?

  • 11:42 Phil - One problem is that people put Challenge Setting proposals on IdeaScale in the same way as ordinary proposals. He affirms how fundamental the insights sharing phase is for challenge setting proposals.

  • 13:56 Matthias - His understanding of what George is doing is: consolidating the challenges, making them bigger and broader, so that the proposals don't have to compete with each other (lower degree of specificity, so there wouldn't be as many proposals trying to better solve a well-defined problem).

Action - Phil to feedback to Ro of Adagov. Maybe come and speak to oversight.

Action - talk to George Lovegrove about oversight - consolidate challenges into smaller categories - Stephen / Allison

Updates - Challenge Team Round table 4 - will be documented here https://quality-assurance-dao.gitbook.io/community-governance-oversight/governance-processes/challenge-setting

5.2 Catalyst Circle problem sensing - 10 minutes

Scope : Effectiveness of prioritized problem sensing

Deliverables : How effectively is the prioritized problem board working ? How can CGO survey, assist and report on this ?

  • 15:57 Stephen - on Catalyst Circle problem sensing: our deliverable is looking at effectiveness of prioritised problem sensing. By coincidence, CCv3 has raised this as an issue themselves. A working group has been set up between Community Governance Oversight and Circle v3 to work on improving the problems process. On Circle side, Nadia and Joey; from this group, Stephen, Allison and Tevo. Particularly focusing on Voltaire principles; and on accessibility and plain language so the community can understand the process better.

Action - Joint working party with Catalyst Circle V3 on the Problems process. - Allison, Stephen, Tevo

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vdQjER__0ZZWq4oGGiA8vVZtG2zOgoFGySgp1sE0uSI/edit?usp=sharing (comment link)

5.3 d-Reps

Scope : Oversight of delegated voting innovations

Deliverables : The Survey deliverable will be used for a literature search contrasting “liquid democracy “ and “illiquid plutocracy “. The purpose is to provide measurable definitions for these terms. This would support the research for F8 CGO and provide some context for the interviews conducted within the community. - Kenric

  • 17:51 Stephen - on dReps; Kenric is focusing on the deliverable for this.

  • 18:39 Kenric - in Zotero (a bibliography tool) Kenric has imported c. 40 articles on governance aspects and divided them into categories:1. blockchain governance, 2. centralized plutocracy, 3. corporate governance, 4. liquid democracy. Anyone interested to see should email Kenric.

  • Kenric also recommends Google Scholar (specialised academic search engine within the Google suite).

  • 21:18 - Kenric met Jack Briggs from IOG, who is responsible for product marketing for Voltaire.

  • 22:00 Kenric is meeting with the Wolfram Mathematica group, who provide computational tools to monitor governance within the Catalyst program.

  • 22:13 Stephen - the deliverables here are a literature review of liquid democracy and issues related to dReps, with a focus on measurable definitions.

  • 23:22 Kenric - the point of the literature review is to enable the community to be better informed for conversations with IOG’s research team

  • 23:38 Stephen - note that IOG have just published a response to the community’s letter about dReps

Updates - IOG have published a response to the community on d-Reps here - see transcript here

Action: Letter to be discussed fully next meeting

  • 25:13 Stephen - Stephen will be documenting info coming from IOG about dReps; will talk with Kenric outside the meeting re how to document what Kenric is doing with Zotero etc.

  • 25:36 Kenric - The goal is to enable the community to be better educated/informed; and to invite the community to participate.

  • 27:12 Stephen - Something is due to be released soon from IOG about dReps. This might change our approach - we thought dReps were on hold, so we chose to go with the deliverable of a literature review; but if dReps are implemented, we will have to look at the process around them.

  • 28:18 Phil - what are our deliverables for each of the governance processes?

  • 29:00 Stephen The deliverables inherited from IOG are the 3 part approach of surveys, retrospectives, and a final report in May/June. But what a survey/ retrospective is, is quite open.

  • 31:40 Vanessa/Stephen - Defining what is external/internal survey; do we include those who have signed up to be a dRep? “External” is “external to IOG”?

  • 32:09 Kenric - Talking to D-Reps themselves is out of scope for this funded proposal, but if we are funded in fund 8 there will be a more complex white paper on the concept of liquid democracy/illiquid plutocracy.

What are Internal & External surveys ?

  • 33:20 Phil - on what is external/internal - it’s obvious from IOG’s point of view, but from ours, it’s about “closeness to the governance process”?

  • 35:30 Stephen - That is actually quite close to the original definition in the proposal. External surveys: aimed at the Catalyst community and their reception of each governance process.

Internal surveys

Internal surveys will be directed at self assessment / lessons learnt by those who organize each governance process (the governance processes are Challenge Teams, Catalyst Circle & the Technical Council.)

External surveys

External surveys will be directed at the Catalyst community and their reception of each governance process ( e.g. The governance processes are Challenge Setting, Catalyst Circle Problem Sensing & governance parameters setting.)

Deliverables : Keeping track and documenting the ongoing community engagement with the d-Rep issue - Stephen

5.4 Governance parameters

Scope : Modifying the governance parameters in Catalyst via Catalyst Circle and a Technical Council.

Deliverables : This scope area is on hold. Some documentation work may be done. - Allison / Stephen

Actions from last meeting : Chase Harris on scope - Allison, Chase Marek on scope - Tevo - Harris announced parameters on hold at CCv3 meeting

  • 36:37 Stephen - re deliverables on Governance Parameters - this process is on hold, unless anyone has any new info?

  • 37:11 Tevo - If there is going to be any kind of integration, then parameter changes have to be considered; but this is speculation..

  • 38:11 Kenric - Even if IOG are still responsible for the parameters, we can still conduct some oversight of that. Parameters still exist so the community needs to understand them. We could survey how IOG is currently managing the parameters.

  • 40:10 Tevo - We could look at the way new parameters are introduced, for example, new rule on who can be a VCA - to me that is a parameter.

  • 41:08 Stephen - Interesting points to think about: what is a parameter change? What is a parameter? Who decides this?

Action - Tevo and Stephen will work on what is a parameter change? What is a parameter? Who decides this?

Miro Board which has funding parameter percents

https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_ljPS0hg=/?moveToWidget=3458764519526918582&cot=10 - Tevo

I think in Survey we also want to involve questions for community for them to suggest more impactful parameters they think there should be - Tevo

  • 42:25 Vanessa - Document/capture what the community says on e.g. Telegram about parameter changes? rather than using Google forms etc to collect community opinion?

Action: Vanessa to do this in an informal way and ask people’s permission

  • 45:05 Allison - Is the question about who decides what counts as a parameter change, or about who makes the change? For the VCA change, was that IOG’s unilateral decision?

  • 45:30 Kenric - As CA rep for Circle v2, I know IOG took input from CA community e.g. via the iterative Dropbox; then IOG implements the change, but they also collect community feedback.

  • 46:36 Allison - I was following the iterative dropbox, but I was still caught by surprise by the VCA eligibility decision. Although CA/VCA processes may be out of scope for us, it would still be interesting to know how that decision was made. If there was community input, it’s useful to document it; and if there wasn’t, it’s useful to note that.

  • 48:01 Phil - How the process went and how the communication happened is a valid discussion. It was announced on Telegram; but the survey question could be whether Telegram is the clearest communication channel for community feedback.

  • 48:50 Stephen - need to liaise with Nadia and CA community on this

  • 49:07 Matthias - Note the work that's being done on setting up a Catalyst constitution - ATH sessions led by Jo (Allum), and Gimbalabs now has a working group. Would it address some of the issues of inclusion in governance?

  • 50:58 Stephen - You could relate a constitution to parameter changes per se. But as Oversight, we can’t get involved in defining a constitution; but we should be documenting as much governance stuff as possible. Suggestion: Anyone who discovers news will let the group know, and it will be documented. You also raise the question of - does IOG only accept solutions that align with their view?

  • 51:46 Phil - RE not stepping on people’s toes - the best way to run the surveys is in consultation with a relevant voted representative in the Circle; best way to ensure broader participation.

  • 52:32 Vanessa - Note that a code of conduct for Circle is being discussed; it’s governance related so we should be aware

  • 53:22: It is a Prioritized Problem, so maybe look at it in that category; our role would be to oversee how it’s working.

  • 53:48 Matthias - There is concern that IOG presents a solution that is not in line with what was proposed earlier. Idea of community being involved in “policing” a code of conduct - has it happened?

6 Fund 7 Proposal Reporting

Hold over item for future updates

7 Governance Oversight Outreach

What efforts can we make to reach different language communities ? 5 minutes

Action from previous meeting: Incorporate funding for translation in F8 proposal

Not completed : Forgot to add this to the F8 proposal - we could possibly fund from another resource - Stephen

Action from previous meeting: For F7 budget focus on outreach and preparation for different language communities - unassigned

8 Any Other Business

  • 55:02 Stephen - Final agenda items:

  • a placeholder on Fund 7 proposal reporting - to be carried over to next meeting.

  • Ongoing issue of how we communicate with different language communities - will carry this over to next meeting, or discuss on Discord if anyone has any ideas.

  • On the Project Board, Stephen is starting to track what we are doing, and ADA costs against each item; starting at a high level on deliverables for oversight of Challenge Settings, dReps and governance parameters.

  • 56:53 Stephen - Danny has asked for a short summary paragraph for his weekly newsletter after each of our meetings. Newsletter goes out on Fridays.

GitHub Project Board

5 minutes

This project is being managed using the beta feature of GitHub Project Boards. See here - https://github.com/orgs/Catalyst-Auditing/projects/3

Summary of CGO meeting for Catalyst Weekly Newsletter

5 minutes

Agree a short paragraph summarizing today's meeting - All

The Community Governance Oversight (CGO) The Community Governance Oversight (CGO) group holds biweekly meetings to examine changes and developments in Catalyst governance processes.

On Thursday 7th April, the CGO group had its 3rd meeting. This focused on how to research and survey existing or planned governance processes from Catalyst Circle problem sensing to dReps to parameter changes. There was also some interesting discussion about what constitutes a governance process – for example, is a change to who can become a VCA an example of one, or not? Kenric Nelson of Photrek introduced Zotero (www.zotero.org) and Google Scholar as tools for development of a literature review on Liquid Democracy & Decentralized Governance. Meetings with Jack Briggs (IOG Product Marketing) and the Wolfram Mathematica team were held on governance and governance measurement, respectively.

Over run time

5 minutes

Feedback

Next Meeting : 1500 UTC, 21st April 2022

Last updated