F7 Meeting 5 - 5th May 2022

Community Governance Oversight Meeting #5 - 15:00 UTC, Thursday, 05th May 2022

F7 Meeting 5 - Agenda - Thursday, 5th May 2022


Link to Agenda



Allison Fromm


Matthias Sieber


Phil Khoo


Stephen Whitenstall


Tevo Saks


Vanessa Cardui


Andre Diamond


Miroslav Rajh




Jo Allum


Kenric Nelson




Livia Corcino



Community Governance Oversight (CGO)

F7 Ideascale Proposal

F8 Ideascale proposal


1. CGO Treasury

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

0:55 Andre – We've paid everything except the surveys, retrospectives and reports. We need to do the math on that tomorrow, to be ready for when funds go in on 9th May.

01:35 Stephen – We've already paid for Town Hall slides and everything else

Action - Deliverables budgeting - Andre & Stephen

2. Town Hall Slides


  • 02:02 Allison – The slides were delivered

  • 02:26 Stephen – Links to our F8 proposal have been removed from the Town Hall slides. Not everyone presenting at Town Hall did this during the voting period.

  • 03:03 Phil – Probably because some people were showing videos that were already pre-recorded.

  • 03:35 Phil – Might be interesting to know what external people are thinking about this group - perhaps a survey?

  • 04:53 Matthias – Voting result on our F8 proposal might tell us that.

3. Fund 8 - CGO Proposal


04:55 Stephen - The Fund 8 CGO Proposal is in the voting stage - no updates

4. CGO Project Board Review

Stephen - Brief Review of the Project Board to check overall progress

  • 05:36 Stephen – Outline of tasks outstanding on the Project Board.

5. F7 CGO Scope and Deliverables

5.1 Challenge setting process


  • 6:49 Allison – George Lovegrove would be interested in talking to the group and seeing if there is any synergy.

  • 07:20 Stephen – Need to get some context about what is happening in the challenge configuration, put that in our final report for this proposal, and leave it at that until Fund 8.

  • 7:46 Phil - Analysis of how George approached the Fund 8 vote would be interesting: whether voters understood what he was doing and, for example, whether equal wallets voted for all his challenge settings.

  • 9:44 Stephen - it raises the question of whether it's possible to change a parameter via a challenge setting

  • 12:43 Phil – On meeting with Ro, due to the time difference, a separate meeting would be better

Action - Stephen to contact George and arrange a meeting

Action - Phil to arrange a separate meeting with Ro, c. 9:30 am UTC one morning.

5.2 Catalyst Circle problem sensing


Action - Next TH refer to CCv3 term and election process. How does the 4 month cadence impact CC term.

  • 15:04 Stephen – We are having regular meetings with Circle and looking at the problem process.

  • 15:34 Allison – It could help circle reps be more effective.

  • 16:10 Tevo – We are halfway there and the next sessions will be about the prioritised problem stage the Circle is working on.

  • 16:44 Stephen – We have looked at the problem-sensing rubric inherited from Governance Alive and refined it. Our next focus will be how problems get onto the board; a key metric we have identified is whether there's community evidence behind it. After that our focus will be whether there is any methodology in place for measuring problems and progressing them across the board. Probably will not finish in fund 7, but can report on how far we get.

  • 18:34 Stephen – Suggest combining the report to IOG to close out the proposal, with our final report on our work.

  • 19:04 Stephen – A shared document has been created that can be completed offline or at the next meeting.

  • 20:20 Allison – As part of our work to increase transparency of governance across Catalyst, maybe we should comment in our next town hall slides that there is not a Circle election happening now.

  • 20:52 Vanessa – Some confusion on this during CCv2, but was definitely clarified at the start of CCv3 that CCv3 would last for 6 months.

  • 21:29 Allison – Useful to give a reminder to the community, especially as there was some confusion about it at the time of the CCv3 election; even some candidates didn't understand what the term was.

  • 24:42 Vanessa – Even if most of the community is aware of the 6 month term, they might not be aware how that was agreed.

  • 27:15 Phil – Cadence of the funding rounds is now effectively 4 months - should CC cadence stay in step with that?

  • 27:33 Allison - That change of fund cadence is a parameter change.

  • 28:39 Matthias - the change to fund 9 being in ADA is also a parameter change.

  • 28:56 Stephen - let's hold those 2 things for the agenda item on parameter changes.

Action: Allison to mention issue of Circle elections on next Town Hall slides

Action: all to contribute to shared doc of final report, which will also serve as project close-out report

5.3 D-reps


29:10 Stephen – Kenric is not here, so quick update: A first governance literature review meeting took place with Steph from Wolfram and others, where the Zotero tool was reviewed; we're going to start holding these meetings regularly, so they're likely to overlap with the fund 8 proposal.

5.4 Governance parameters


  • 30:30 Tevo – Parameters are of two types: about the process, and about specific terms like number, date or some limit. To make it a parameter, you need a brief description of it, and you need to know how it can be changed. Also need to unstand which ones need to be changed behind closed doors, and which could be done in the community; Kevin Hammond's recent talk at Town Hall mentioned this.

  • 32:33 Stephen – I transcribed Kevin Hammond's ATH meeting and turned it into a FAQ about the Treasury.

  • Returning to earlier comments in this meeting - new parameter changes introduced in this Fund include: - shift to 4-month cadence for each Fund - shift to setting fund budget in ADA - VCA petition process - who is eligible to be a VCA - introduction of reputation model for VCAs

  • 34:51 Phil – A permissionless system was created for this petition process; we start it, and operate it, but we don't have any community agency to carry out the results. Raises questions if so many new parameters are being introduced without consultation; or if things are implemented that are not what the community suggests. IOG have a research team working on parameter changes, but the community also is doing research.

  • 36:39 Stephen – It's not clear how the parameter changes are made. The order that was perceived is: community design a petition process > getting results > which are taken to IOG > next step is unknown.

  • 37:10 Phil – We as a community need IOG to take some steps forward. I am meeting with Harris tomorrow to discuss opening the data; will also raise issue of what the "goalposts" are - the targets that the community needs to reach before decision-making will be put into our hands. It might take years - but we need to know what the goalposts are.

  • 41:41 Stephen – We should be working on the equivalent of a parameter change rubric in the same way that we have a rubric for a prioritized problem, because at present there is no consistency.

  • 42:11 Vanessa – Small changes are often introduced piecemeal, so we might not fully realise how big the effect will be and that it amounts to a parameter change. And if potential parameter changes are raised for discussion, there is an issue with how it's done- sometimes just in Telegram, and phrased as if it's already decided. Example today with idea of requiring proposers to pay a deposit to propose. So there are no changes being made to big parameters that everyone recognises as a parameter. But there are the arbitrary, little things that really have a massive effect.

  • 43:51 Stephen – As CGO we should focus more on parameters. Initially, we thought it was postponed because the parameters pilot was postponed; but it's not postponed, it's gone underground. Parameter changes are happening! Might be something to include on our Town Hall slides.

  • 44:54 Phil – The common thread is, the community needs to be better informed; and we need to define the best communication channel for that, which is probably not Telegram. And how do we dissent? There is no dissent option at the moment for the community, because it's an IOG parameter being put into practice, we can only discuss the edges of that parameter, not the core of it at this point.

  • 47:05 Stephen – Sometimes we are not consulted at all; for example the 4 month funding cadence and the fund budget in Ada were just sprung on us.

  • 47:49 Tevo - We do not have a board for parameter changes, or a process, or any data; things are discussed, but not really reported or focused on, so that when IOG make a change, we don't know which pocket of information they might have collected is being used.

  • 49:24 Stephen – It comes back to the question of agency. It's not about whether or not something was discussed; it's about how IOG then make the decision; how was it decided, when, who is involved, etc.

  • 50:16 Allison – At the origin of this group, the idea was that we would ensure that parameters were debated, discussed, workshopped, and communicated as widely as possible. So we're doing exactly the right thing to continue the work around defining parameters, and documenting the changes that are happening and the fashion they're happening in.

  • 51:20 Phil – Is IOG already implementing the Technical Council internally? They do have a research team - so maybe we need access to that research team directly, rather than through a spokesperson. We need a regular meeting with those people who are researching, to feed back what they're researching, and pass that on to the community. So I wonder if our Fund 8 pivot should be towards actually collecting and documenting all these parameter changes?

  • 52:18 Stephen - That's not even a change of scope - it's already in scope.

  • 53:20 Allison – We should revisit the idea of having an IOG representative join this group? We need a conduit to what's happening at IOG; ask Harris to meet with us on this?

  • 56:37 Phil – A parameter needs time to be created, discussed, altered, and then moved on; that's how it works in parliaments around the world. There is a bit of stuff missing inside there; it's our purpose as a group to start looking towards making that happen.

  • 57:23 Tevo – An example of this would be taking this four-month cadence, for example, and then turning it into a parameter. I would like to to document this process.

  • 57:54 Phil - A that document to the community for consultation. And then, ask IOG what a parameter is from their perspective; and we start cataloguing the parameters as we think they are.

  • 58:52 Stephen – The big question is, getting alignment on what a parameter is, across IOG and the oversight committee? And once we're agreed, then decide what is the basic process for maing a parameter change?

  • 59:24 Phil – We need to define a parameter both internally and externally, catalogue the existing parameters as we see them, and any new ones that emerge. And then we need to start drawing attention to those parameters, and that they are changing, and that maybe a better system needs to be put in place to create a feedback loop with the community.

  • 01:00:31 Vanessa – If we are cataloguing existing parameters, we should also capture where they were first mentioned, or released, or shared to the community; as there are questions about the sharing process, we should try to document it.

  • 01:01:12 Allison – It would be good to bring someone from IOG into this conversation. And in our next Town Hall slides, we should reference that we're starting to catalogue these parameter changes, and mention some of the recent ones.

  • 01:02:16 Phil – When we meet with IOG, we should present a simplified version of what we define as a parameter, and the list of the categorised parameters that we've identified; and say we would like to present these at Town Hall.

Action - Phil and Allison to both try to catch Harris and invite him to a meeting next week.

6. FUND 7 CGO Proposal Reporting


  • Due 24th May 2022 - Stephen to complete

7. Any Other Business


Summary of CGO meeting for Catalyst Weekly Newsletter - All agree, in Discord, a short paragraph summarizing today's meeting

Other governance initiatives in the community: - Cardano Constitution Working Group - gimbalabs - Matthias liaison Feedback on this form Well received feedback. Form translated. Related to tokenimics work - Innovation Fund Architecture - Research workshops and session - Tevo Miro board High level visual representation to see roles, actives and relations 3 sessions regarding proposal assessment role completed Overview video planned - Phil - Open data meeting with Harris, Lidonation, Ro etc - LatAm Community are working on creating a manifesto

Next Meeting: 15:00 UTC, 19th May 2022

Last updated