Catalyst Improvement Task Force Fund 10--2nd Meeting
===
### Agenda and meeting notes
###### tags: `Meeting` `Agenda`

:::info
- **Location:** [Catalyst United Server Hub Chat](https://discord.com/channels/946921942143885342/946921942525571133)
- **Date:** Monday, Oct 10th. [See Event time here](https://discord.com/events/946921942143885342/1028702591477096458)
- **Agenda**
1. Present Working Group Code of Conduct, Charter, Distributed Leadership, Trustee appointment `10min`
> [name=JeremyB]
2. "Proposer/PA/vPA guidelines bootstrapping" presentation `20min`
> [name=Jeffrey Mashaw]
3. Catalyst Reforms and Experiments `20min`
> [name=???]
4. How do we define Tasks? `15min`
> [name=???]
5. Nominate/appoint ex-officio trustee for vPA Process Working Group (time permitting) `00min`
- **Participants:**
- CaptainDang
- Quasar
- Jeffrey Mashaw
- JeremyB
- Ratio13
- Randall
- Skywalker
- Vgr
-
- **Contact:** JeremyB#9734 on discord
- **Facilitator:** ??
- **Reference:** - [Last meeting minutes](https://hackmd.io/qIIEwGGGQrCwC7fuW4rGXQ)
:::

## Item 1: Opening Presentation

- [Link to Working Group Code of Conduct](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bRFsYYbDc52U610XGgg2h-dBFdn2MhgvlXwHtElq3_0/edit#heading=h.3moreczex8qp)
- [Link to Working Group Charter](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zYMKkDKdZzRq4kW55ZBYQPOKR0xvngiZvJ6Ge8TaleU/edit#)
- [Link to Qualities of Distributed Leadership](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaSgZdZnQR_EKUgtFszTnyLlvq45HFEvAVdcv8bRLkQ/edit#heading=h.t5cwz4qgvxap)

:hammer_and_wrench: Proposer/PA/vPA guidelines bootstrapping
---
- [Proposer, PA, vPA Guidelines Tasks Set-up Doc](https://hackmd.io/VFYwBvs7RVKkGiyahElwZA)
- Understanding the set-up doc
- Next steps

:alembic: Simon report: Catalyst Reforms and Experiments
---
- Overview document https://hackmd.io/@meZ8FgaaTlmP5hQnROPwIA/B1Kt_OWQo
- To be done: create dework tasks for each separate problem (based on what is decided during this meeting)

:gear: How do we define tasks?
---
- Simon: it would be great if we had a pre-defined structure for this. Simon's initital suggestion: 
- Please discuss and revise this!!

:wrench: Tasks Assigned/Accomplished
--

### Guidelines Task Group:
- [x] Working doc established
- [ ] Organize effort to do initial sorting of backlog
- [ ] Plan for communication with other stakeholders
- [ ] Organize async space for the guidelines/documentation work specifically

### Reforms and Experiments:
- [ ] Read Simon's doc and discuss async (link above)
- [ ] Add specific agenda item based on discussion for next meeting
- [ ] ???

### Task Force Coordination:
- [ ] Set up and announce next WG meeting
- [ ] Set up When2Meet for next week
- [ ] Build agenda for next meeting
- [ ] Setup Async space for discussing and collecting thoughts on establishing payrates for the working group
- [ ] Setup async space for discussing the organization of dework spaces for the WG, especially documentation
- [ ] Establish subspace for Fund 10 documentation in community suggestions to have a place to sort suggestions to

### Appointment of Trustee:
- [ ] Can we set up async space where we can capture the overall conversation on this issue?

## Notes
<!-- Other important details discussed during the meeting can be entered here. -->
- we were unable to parse Simon's doc due to a permissions error. Plan is to read and address it async when available.
- covered the appointment of a trustee from this working group in the introduction, however we did not have time to address it at the end of the meeting. Recommended to be added as a priority in an upcoming meeting, perhaps with an async leadup to the meeting, or an unsync meeting for a vote.
- there was a lot of conversation around conceptual organizing of the work, how to make it accessible. Suggestion to have dedicated space for async discussion of these issues and to add specific agenda item with questions or suggestions to parse on this front

## Meeting Minutes
<!-- -->

JeremyB: introduction: code of conduct introduced "We are all responsible for our environment" all should be familiar with it, as a tool to help regulate our participation.

Also the Charter, history of charter and why it was created, why it governs payouts.

Finally, an essay about how leadership functions in living systems, how we all model it. Segue into description of trustees, the need for the appointment, and how we may need to continue to develop the WG as we work towards appointing a trustee.

Quick note on Simon being unavailable, and a permissions error on his presentation document, however we could still go through his suggestion to assign tasks based on this meeting.

Jeffrey: presents CGO problem sensing rubric and how he has approached setting up an approach to the guidelines...Indicates insight into the lack of alignment between guidelines as he was introduced to Catalyst.

Suggestions is an opensource repo (who manages?) with HackMD for commenting overlay.

Scott: CU Server has a github that can host these kinds of projects. It was created as part of Nadia Hopkins work as PA/vPA in CircleV3.

Jeff: I'll start working through the backlog of sensed issues, but I have a question about how we will handle consensus, so any advice on that would be appreciated.

Quasar: concerns about things we do that segregate our community, is there any plan to get the same information shared anywhere? Not centralization, but how do we get the info synced, can we use a broader Catalyst Repo?

Scott: centralization of information sharing is a necessary thing, and we are open to using any repo.

Jeremy: The choice of repo is part of a continuum where we have to work, and bring that work into alignment with principles as we go. The CU repo ostensibly belongs to the PA community which has become an open question as that community was defined by Circle participation when the repo was started, but that is no longer true (even if there was a PA rep in Circle...there is a difference in kind now).

We need the ability to push repo changes via a repo we build and experiment in.

Jeff: Github may be the ideal location, as it does give us collaborative pushes.

Scott: Github may not be the best editing platform for docs. Other collaborative spaces may be better (hackMD, cryptpad). github is not friendly for community editing of docs.

Jeff: that is a big question, what do change suggestions look like?

Scott: CU Server is set up with dework, which creates the backend repo, while creating discord conversation for broader input. Is this the best way? We don't know, but new members bring a common perspective of having worked via comments in google docs, so this is a change that we are set up for.

Jeremy: Lets imagine this as an execution issue, where a user comes into this at different levels. Imagine a HackMD frontend with a cryptpad editing platform. That allows us to separate the main doc from the editing process, which prevents last minute, last mile issues where the main doc gets compromised in editing.

We do have the issue of prioritizing and parsing the pile of sensed issues. Jeff phrased this well with "creating a consistent experience for proposals". Are proposals the "first class citizens" of catalyst, and is thinking like this a good way to move past role tribalism?

Coming back to Jeff's doc, processing the backlog is a task that needs to be done...issues are collected in many places, but we don't yet have a process for processing the ideas.

Can we process the backlog with a problem sensing, task setting, rubric? Issues include combining ideas that are duplicates but phrased differently, another issue is ideas or changes that are mutually exclusive, or other issues that are pieces of eachother, or require eachother to be functional and need to be combined and integrated.

So going forward we could set tasks for analyzing, tagging and categorizing sensed issues. Additionally we could siphon off the top of the TODO list tasks that are urgent and can start to be iterated and designed as we develop background processes.

Scott: how does this tie into the bounty system for the treasury? Is the treasury a hurdle for people to accomplish tasks in this environment?

Dang: Retroactive works for this model, similar to how the petitions proces worked this round, so we do the work first and then present resutls afterward.

Jeremy: key to treasury dispensing funds is peer validation. If you do work and can show work, then others should be able to validate that work and funding can be released.

Some points about payrate and maybe needing to have a dedicated space to talk about how we use tools like task points.

Jeff: I have been tracking hours

Jeremy: exactly right, showing work, assigning some concept of value like hours or impact that can be validated by your peers is the way forward here, but the Treasury is not requiring submissions from participants in a working group in order to participate. The point of the charter talked about earlier is to pre-approve funding requests so that kind of barrier isn't holding things up.

Scott: because it was brought up, I can walk us through the benefits and structure of the dework "community suggestions" option. *shares screen and does a quick walkthrough*

Jeremy: IMO, that community suggestions is still probably the best way to build the sensed issues repo, but we run into an issue with what standards are used so that suggestions can be processed.

Ideas go into community suggestions in an open and inclusive way, but we need a way to process them.

A lot of ways forward.

Jeff: The concept of community issues seems vague, but can we have a more descriptive space in dework or discord.

Scott: we have a channel that is a forum topic in the CU Server. Also the shared ideas channel in the CU Server lists them all, as well as description for how to submit a suggestion.

Jeremy: Not to get too far afield, but we should consider how engagement over time is one of the primary drivers of adoption. The "communication" in community can help us address the adoption of useful tools and processes, and avoid duplication of effort and other waste.

Quasar: before getting to task assignment, can I talk about Circle Parameters?

Jeremy: I don't have a problem with it.

NOTE: lengthy discussion not entirely related to the task force, however the following connection to the work of this group was established:

*similar backlogs and need to adopt process for their role as sensors, plus the importance of an interoperable continuum between repos, servers. Open Standards for communication itself in Catalyst.

Jeff: moving forward, my suggestion would be to get the documents in first, and then to create branches.

Scott: we need serious discussion about how to organize these spaces to reduce overhead.

Jeremy: we may be able to use the task/subtask to create our conceptual layering, but it won't be the public portal.

Scott: would it work to organize the spaces around the concept of Fund 9-subspace documentation, etc. Nested boards, or nested tasks?

Jeff: I am just thinking of a space for where to put Fund10 standardized suggestions that are documentation specific. Can we create a community suggestions subspace just for documentation suggestions?

Scott: Sure

Jeremy: I'll be helping with that and that sorting is a priority task that would be great to start spreading.

In addition we should open communication channels to other stakeholder groups that are stewarding their own guidelines. And on top of that IOG will be bringing changes that we need to be prepared to adapt to.

Scott: returning to dework, there could be other ways to organize the spaces, and we should consider it.

JeremY: I'll list an agenda item for working on the conceptual framework for the dework workspaces, how we archive spaces, etc.

With that, lets wrap this up, any last thoughts? We won't be getting to trustee appointment in this meeting, but we should consider an async discussion for that.

*end meeting*

## Recordings
- [10 Oct 2022 @ 2200 UTC](https://drive.google.com/file/d/120lGKDAaBsd9Nn_R6J_nH7P37kgbSQjg/view?usp=sharing)