F7 Meeting 6 - 2nd June 2022
F7 Meeting 6 - Agenda - Thursday, 2th June 2022
Agenda
Attendees
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
Allison Fromm | Member |
Kenric Nelson | Member |
Matthias Sieber | Member |
Phil Khoo | Member |
Stephen Whitenstall | Member |
Tevo Saks | Member |
Vanessa Cardui | Member |
Andre Diamond | Treasury |
Miroslav Rajh | Treasury |
Apologies
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
Jo Allum | Member |
Minutes
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
Livia Corcino | Secretary |
Information
Community Governance Oversight (CGO)
Agenda
1. CGO Treasury
0:59 Andre - This is the last F7 meeting; we need to pay for the minutes for this meeting, then decide what to do with any remaining funds. The payment made to group members on Tuesday was for the Fund 8 CGO.
02:20 Stephen - We shouldn’t discuss the F8 proposal until the first F8 meeting. This meeting needs to decide - when we write our final F7 report, where should the money for deliverables go? Divide equally, or not? To be decided at end of this meeting, when we have an idea of what work is being done on different deliverables.
Action: Pay for meeting minutes - decide on allocation of remaining funds.
2. Town Hall Slides
Issue:
03:22 Allison - Slides cover history of who the group is and where it came from, and updates on what's going on in governance. Yesterday, focused on updates on parameter changes. I plan to continue with this format.
Yesterday, specific parameter issue of confusion on whether challenge budgets are denominated in USD or ADA - want to give clarity on this next time. IOG have said they need to clarify it internally - we need a very clear statment from them.
06:30 Vanessa - dReps will be a hot topic next time?
06:56 Allison - I’m covering dReps in the 2nd slide on general governance updates.Don’t want to have a slide on parameter changes if there haven’t been any - but want to invite the community to say if they have noted any parameter changes.
7:45 Phil - We need some sort of input mechanism, maybe a form, or via CGO Discord server, so people can highlight and question what they see as parameter changes.
Action: Allison to continue with existing format
3. Fund 8 - CGO Proposal
Issue:
09:24 Stephen - F8 CGO proposal was funded. People have committed to the F8 project - new members Thorsten and George. We have paid first payment for meeting commitment.
4. CGO Project Board Review
Board:
10:38 Stephen - Project board is a little out of date. We will do F8 onboarding later this month. Currently we’re working on the 4 different parts of the final report: oversight of Circle’s problem-sensing, dReps, governance parameters, and challenge-setting.
5. F7 CGO Scope and Deliverables
5.1 Challenge setting process
Issue:
11:39 Stephen - We've had several discussions about how to do oversight of challenge setting. For final report, George Lovegrove will do a one page summary and conclusion on challenge-setting issues over the past 3 months.
12:52 Phil - George has a specific line on it, and has been working towards a specific goal; I’ll contact him to provide a counterpoint.
5.2 Catalyst Circle problem sensing
Issue:
14:42 Stephen - Tevo, Allison, Stephen and Nadia met on Tues to wrap up.
15:04 Tevo - The process seems to be bringing value and will continue. Thinking about the process of problem-sensing has opened opportuniies to use this in different networks, e.g. creating a task using the problem-sensing methodology.
16:04 Allison - 2 key takeaways: 1) We have spent time on the process of getting problems on the board; less attention on how they move across the board, and especially how they are closed - this could be an area for future focus. 2) It would be good to get more participation from Circle.
16:40 Stephen - On Miro, retrospective of what we’ve covered in the last 4 working meetings - need to summarise it and include in final report.
17:47 Vanessa - last Circle meeting raised additional issue of how much detail to include in a card when documenting a problem’s progress - could also be part of future focus.
18:13 Stephen - as Oversight, is it OK that we helped design the process?
18:52 Allison - Ongoing question of who is mandated to design the processes and workflows that Circle follows? and who should be incentivised and compensated for that?- Note, this hasn’t been discussed at all in our meetings.
20:32 Stephen - The start of our oversight of Circle coincided with the election of new Circle members, so we took a support role early on, with the design of the problem-sensing process. But that’s turned into potentially a scoping issue for us, and a mandate issue, since we are meant to be overseeing Circle’s problem-sensing, not directly working on it.
21:17 Phil - As sub-circles were funded (and Circle was not), that could give them a mandate to put forward a rep to create a new Circle. Would need to be more broadly discussed first.
22:33 Kenric - Would that reduce level of participation in electing Circle members? The process has already been criticised for not being inclusive enough.
23:15 Phil - But sub-circles were voted for by many wallets, so they’re even more mandated than the small numbers who take part in Circle elections.
23:35 Stephen - That raises another fundamental issue - if you’re funded, does that equate to legitimacy?
23:45 Kenric - When I was a Circle rep (CCv2) there were already concerns about Circle roles and how they were elected. We are dependent on IOG’s leadership now, but there has to be a transition to community leadership. Maybe need a F9 proposal on designing a treasury for the Circle via putting in a CIP.
25:18 Stephen - These conversations are valid, but outside the scope of Oversight. On Circle problem-sensing - CGO 7 strayed into solutions rather than oversight, but Circle want to continue to partner with CGO F8 on problem-sensing; so that’s our remit - we don’t have a mandate to offer solutions.
26:15 Phil - The original concept of Circle was never to have just one Circle but several. And there are funded groups that represent smaller parts of the community; including ourselves. There would be nothing to stop those groups forming a Circle and operating as a human sensory array, modelled on “the” Circle.
26:49 Stephen - Important question; but from the point of view of CGO, we will continue to offer oversight only, focusing specifically on Circle’s problem-sensing.
27:53 Tevo - the expectation from our retrospective is that Oversight will include overseeing how tasks are closed; currently there is no process. We could also oversee how working processes are created so as to allow maximum participation.
28:39 Stephen - For final report, we need to summarise what is in the Miro and the documentation; and reach some conclusions. We should cover the question of balance between “just Oversight” and a mandate to revise Circle’s processes.
5.3 D-reps
Issue:
30:09 Kenric - Group went well. Had 3 meetings; 5 people plus Kenric and Stephen. Focused particularly on a paper on measuring power in liquid democracies - see document about it(add link). In F8, will work as a team to produce a white paper on what we are tentatively calling “measuring socioeconomic health in…” (either “liquid democracies” generally; or “delegated representatives”, to be specific to Catalyst).
31:44 Stephen - Kenric is summarising meetings as a whole; I’m doing more detailed documentation of each meeting (add link).
32:48 Kenric - We're making good use of Zotero - but it doesn’t integrate well with Google docs. Hoping to be able to resolve this.
33:30 Stephen - We’ll use Kenric’s summary as basis for final report; summarising what we did, key papers we covered, why it was important, what’s been completed, any problems identified, and what the plan forward is.
35:35 Tevo - Issue with page-sharing in meetings
36:21 Stephen - In future, structure meetings with a more fixed agenda; Stephen to chair so Kenric can focus on leading discussion.
37:06 Stephen - include something in final report on current state of play with dReps, taken from QA-DAO’s documentation of the recent dRep meetings.
Action: Final report: what we did, key papers we covered, why it was important, what’s been completed, any problems identified, and what the plan forward is. plus current state of play with dReps.
5.4 Governance parameters
Issue:
37:45 Stephen - For final report, it’s particularly interesting how CGO has evolved on this deliverable. Meeting with Harris was significant.
38:48 Allison - Was it agreed that Harris would start attending CGO meetings regularly?
39:32 Stephen - Raises wider question, what kind of IOG participation do we want in these meetings in future? 41:54 - Let’s discuss this async in Discord, as we don’t have consensus.
45:15 Matthias - There are arguments for and against: but for now, I wouldn’t demand continuous participation of IOG members in these meetings; open invitation is enough.
46:49 Stephen - We may have to have one more meeting on “what is Oversight’s relationship with governance parameters”, as it’s a live issue. But for our final report, we could document meeting with Harris, and summarise it.
48:07 Kenric - Reach out to Sebastian from DCSpark? - he got an award in F8 to be the CIP editor. That’s Cardano parameters, and is broader than “Catalyst governance parameters”, but it does include, for example, setting the treasury for Catalyst.
48:38 Stephen - He has expressed reluctance to get involved in Catalyst governance in the past, but that might have changed. Sebastian put in a CIP himself (which Charles Hoskinson has referred to) about tweaking the Treasury process. This could affect Catalyst; also, questions on the process; can there be Catalyst community suggestions on changing Cardano treasury?
52:01 Tevo - Are there any CIPs related to staking keys, voting keys, changes to how they are stored in Cardano and how they will be referenced after the Vasil hardfork?
52:30 Stephen - I’ve started to document relevant CIPs in our GitBook
53:08 Kenric - There is also the Technical Council, who is responsible for Catalyst governance parameters.
53:50 Stephen - We won’t address these issues fully in F7 - need to carry it forward.
54:21 Phil - There was discussion in our meeting with Harris on making the internal IOG parameter-changing process more transparent and public; we could include in our final report a suggestion that this happens.
Action: Everyone Deadline for final drafts for closing report - 20th June 2022
Close-out meeting for CGO F7 - 30th June 2022
- Challenge setting: George - Circle problem-sensing: Tevo, Allison, Stephen - dReps: Kenric, (Vanessa add material on dRep meetings) - Governance parameters: all; meet to review meeting with Harris.
First meeting of CGO F8 will be after this.
6. FUND 7 CGO Proposal Reporting
Issue:
1:01:45 Stephen did monthly proposal reporting on 24th May
The only remaining report is the final report.
7. Any Other Business
“CA” was changed to “Proposal assessor” - no formal discussion?
Overview video where Tevo has captured the main highlights of the Proposal Assessor role meetings - three 1-hour meetings. Community discussed pros and cons of the change, but there was no expectation it would definitely happen
Would have been better for community to be told 2 weeks before, because all the community resources (e.g. Catalyst School documentation) now need to be updated to read PA instead of CA, which is a lot of work.
1:01:53 Stephen - Maybe part of recurring theme of “are things being sprung on us?”
1:03:58 Phil - Needs to be more consultative; or at least inform people in advance.
Summary for Catalyst Weekly Newsletter
1:05:01 Danny is away until next week, so there will be no Newsletter.
Meeting ends 1:08:09
Last updated
