Governance Team meeting minutes 2024 07 09

Minutes from July 9, 2004 Governance Team meeting
Held at 14:00 UTC in

Attendees: Fradique, Skyler, Ivan, Douceur, Zulkis,

Reviewed outcome of CRT Complaint 001. Fradique walked through the process used by the CRT and will implement the outcome to remove the subject from the program.

The team held a general discussion on how to fulfill the operational responsibilities of the Governance Team as required by the Program Bylaws.

Failure to participate in the Peer Review process means not providing Submissions or not completing the requested Evaluations more than once in any rolling 6-month period. Failure by an Ambassador will require the Governance Team to register a Complaint with the Conflict Resolution Team.
a. Clarified the working language
b. We can use this sheet to track Ambassador submissions:

c. Discussed concerns re: volume of email, complaints, etc.
d. Discussed several potential rule changes - automatic termination with a higher threshold, or more frequent submissions. Agreed to table for now.
e. Discussed method of creating complaints - but continued to struggle with concerns about the number of Complaints and the back and forth required to hear each complaint.
f. Decided to not implement the requirement for now, but consider changing the rule instead. Will require another call to discuss alternative proposals for the rule, which shoudl include consideration of the impact of holidays.

Considered new proposal:
Automatic termination after missing 2 submissions within any 6 month period, excluding any miss due to holiday notified in advance.

Need to continue discussion on the proposal and agree whether we can make changes as Governance to the bylaws since they have been finalized but are not yet implemented in agreements.


Prior to ambassador agreements being finalized, I support re-opening up the bylaws to allow for necessary rule changes to quickly be made. This would temporarily bypass the general assembly required for changes and allow for these changes to be made with a simple majority vote of governance team participants.

I also support the new proposal, which suggests that ambassadors should be automatically terminated after missing two peer review submissions. This method would reduce the administrative burden on the new Conflict Resolution Team, allow us to shore up the best group of ambassadors that sign token grants.

I would make a change to the proposal, specifically that “excluding any miss due to holiday notified in advance” would prevent the automatic termination. In this stage there isn’t enough bandwidth to quibble on what does or doesn’t constitutes a holiday. It takes less than 5 minutes to make a submission and it happens at the same time every month. There are plenty of reminders and the token grant is generous, find a way to submit something. Additionally, this rule allows every ambassador to “take off” two months per year from submissions (one allowance every 6 months).

Maybe we add a “time-off allowance” at a later date and allow previously vacationing ambassadors that have been offboarded to reapply, but I don’t think budgeting for vacations should be a super high priority 3 months before mainnet.

1 Like

We cannot see the results of the ambassadors, especially in Asia. We cannot see any effect of the ambassadors’ work at all.

Are there particular places/platforms you are referring to here? Can you help us understand where you’d like to see more activity from ambassadors? And you are welcome to apply to the program yourself to help rectify the situation :+1:

There are no promotional articles by ambassadors in any media. It would be a better approach if ambassadors could write some articles about autonomy on WeChat public accounts and other major media to introduce the advantages, disadvantages and progress of the project. However, some unqualified ambassadors do not promote the project at all. Some ambassadors even openly said on WeChat that autonomys is about to end, and deceived community members to quickly sell their hard drives to spread panic.

Can you tell me who specifically please? Ideally with evidence of these messages. Thanks.