►
From YouTube: W3 Gravity WG: Typeform, zenhub and funny moments :p
Description
Question of the week: How are you today?
Timecodes:
00:00 - Question of the week
04:55 - Presenting the typeform
08:42 - That was actually super fun!!
12:23 - Coordinate with sourcecred
14:36 - Epics zenhub
27:35 - Working group proposal, Omega
37:46 - Back to zenhub
50:48 - Thoughts on Drllau suggestion
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/DDr5kYU
or say hello on Telegram http://t.me/CommonsStack
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CommonsStack
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
B
A
A
I
will
say
that
I'm
very
good.
I
have
a
lot
of
work
and
that
gives
me
that
makes
me
feel
very
alive
and
I'm
very
happy
that
that
we
are
actually
doing
this
call
today,
because
each
conflict
management
working
group
call
is
a
learning
experience
for
me
and
I
think
it's
also
good
for
the
purpose
of
building
resilience
in
the
organization.
So
yeah,
that's
my
take
for
the
question
and
I
will
pass
it
to
mateo.
C
D
Hey
good
morning,
yeah,
I'm
also
very
good,
I'm
working
in
a
very
beautiful
place
that
have
deers
and
turkeys
and
squirrels
running
around
all
the
time.
So
it
feels
good
to
be
here,
and
I
also
my
partner
gave
me
espresso
machine
so
this
morning
I
I
got
to
wake
up
and
make
like
a
fresh
espresso
and
that
felt
really
good
and
now
pass
to
durga
das.
E
F
And
I
like
durability.
I
feel
like
super
good
because,
like
I
I'm
able
to
do
many
things
in
like
every
day
and
like,
for
example,
I'm
working
on
my
job,
but
then
I'm
doing
sport,
then
I'm
here
and
sometimes
I'm
playing.
Videos
like
I
can
do
a
lot
of
things
and
that's
so
so
so
good
like
and
I'm
learning
a
lot
like
from
everything
and
I'll
pass
it
to.
G
Grief
yeah,
following
that
it's
hard
yeah.
I
feel
the
same
feeling
really
good.
Have
a
lot
to
do.
Lots
of
calls
definitely
a
little
distracted
because
we
have
to
both
livvy
and
I
will
be
like
dishing
praise
for
or
quantifying
praise
for,
the
common
stack
during
the
next
few
hours
during
all
of
our
calls.
So
that's
a
distraction.
I
also
feel
like.
I
need
to
get
the
agenda
set
for
the
call
tomorrow
today.
H
B
A
A
A
A
A
So
then,
it
says
please
describe
the
most
objective
way.
What
you
would
like
to
inform
if
there
is
sensible
information,
please
don't
give
any
details
and
let
us
reach
you.
This
is
because
the
group
of
conflict
managers
is
going
to
have
access
to
this
to
the
answers
of
this
type
form.
We
don't
want
to
have
like
all
the
information
there,
and
we
want
to
have
like
it's
very
sensible
information
to
to
treat
that
in
a
more
private
way.
A
H
D
B
E
A
A
A
C
So
if
we
choose
a
same
effort
for
grabbing
all
the
discord
telegram
and
all
of
those
accounts
and
merge
it
into
one
that
that
will
help
us
also
so
that
effort
will
be
like
correlated
between
those
parts,
and
the
idea
is
that
in
source
credit
we
have
one
alias
that
is
linked
between
discord
and
github
and
this
course
and
telegram
and
everything.
So
we
need
to
maybe
in
the
single
today
we
talk
about
it
and
which
will
be
the
best
way.
C
E
G
A
A
A
G
G
A
A
I
also
know
that
mateo
was
studying
a
little
bit
of
aragon
agreements,
so
I
want
to
know
mateo
what
do
you
think
about
aragon
agreements
and
how?
What
do
you
think
that
we
can
nurture
learn
from
what
they're
doing
and
what?
What
can
we
like
complement
on
the
on
the
on
the
initial
idea
that
they
are
applying.
C
The
thing
with
the
arrogant
agreements
is
that
they
are
trying
to
make
the
not
like
a
objective,
formal
contract,
but
as
a
like
a
rule
of
conduct,
but
with
a
real
agreement,
as
it
says,
as
the
name
says,
so
it's
not
like
code
or
something,
but
it
needs
the
the
interpretation
of
someone.
So
the
key
that
is
missing
in
the
dow
agreements,
let's
say
is
the
human
part
that
we
are
organizing.
C
It
is
like
a
personal
human,
readable
agreement
that
we'll
need
someone
to
to
be
checking
on
regularly,
let's
say,
and
if
that
agreement
is
broken,
we
still
need
the
the
mediation
that
aragon
will
solve
with
around
chord,
but
we
in
the
tc
are
having
the
gravity
and
all
of
these
self
governance
version
of
it.
So
if
we
are
going
full
with
the
aragon
versions,
we
need
to
set
up
the
dow
in
there
and
the
the
the
chord.
That
is
not
really
going
that
widely.
I'm
not
sure.
C
If,
if
that
chord
has
had
many
successful
examples,
I
don't
know
them.
Maybe
grief
knows,
but
I
believe
that
these
agreements
will
help
us
keep
in
record
what
some
conflicts
may
become
in
the
future.
So
the
human
part
is
what
we
need
to
organize.
We
wouldn't
use
the
our
own
course,
or
maybe
we
would
I'm
not
sure,
but
maybe
the
self-governance
aspect
of
the
human
interaction
that
that
these
agreements
need
is
what
we,
what
we
need
to
solve
for
the.
G
The
big
challenges-
the
argon
court
is
number
one
paused
right
now,
number
two:
it's
not
on
x
die
so,
but
one
hive
is
talking
about
creating
celeste,
either
way.
The
way
I
see
these
agreements
are
the
that
they
allow
anyone
to
challenge
which
is
really
cool.
It's
a
really
cool
use
case
where,
if
there's
a
proposal,
anyone
can
challenge
that
proposal.
If
it
doesn't
match
the
agreement,
and
then
you
just
need
some
other
party
who
judges.
G
If
that,
if
that's
true-
and
I
think
that
can
easily
be
a
token
holder
group-
a
multi-sig
basically
right
and
it
could
be
the
conflict,
it
could
be
the
gravity
multisig,
for
instance,
I
say
multisig,
really
it
would
be
a.
There
would
be
a
token
that
these
people
would
hold
and
it
would
have
its
own
mini
gravity
dao.
G
D
What
what
was
the
word?
You
use
the
challenge,
you
mean
proposals
that
are
submitted
and
that
they
might
not
be
in
agreement
with
the
organization
or
a
conflict
proposal
like
let's
say
a
conflict
escalated
to
a
point
that
we
put
a
proposal
up
and
then
people
challenge
that
the
legitimacy
of
that.
What
do
you
mean
by
proposals.
A
Yeah
one
case
that
aragon
agreements
and
challenge
is
trying
to
solve
is
what
happened
on
on
maker,
that
a
decision
was
like
altered
on
the
on
on
the
last
moment
and
people
that
feel
that
that
decision,
even
though
you
it
was
a
full
proposal,
was
not
legitimate.
They
they
can
like
challenge
the
legitimacy
of
the
of
the
of
the
decisions
taken
so
yeah.
I.
A
G
G
There
is
going
to
be
terms
and
conditions
that
they
must
sign.
Now.
I
think
that's
going
to
end
up
being,
if,
especially,
if
you
guys
push
it
aragon
agreements
and
instead
of
a
terms
and
conditioned
box,
that's
what
we
were
going
to
do.
It's
just
the
terms
and
condition
box,
but
we
could
integrate
argon
agreements
if
it
works,
and
so
just
adding
to
working
closely
with
legal
to
add
in
some
pieces
and
make
that
make
these
terms
and
agreements,
something
that
is
like
reviewed
by
both
groups
could
be
really
beneficial.
G
And
one
thing
I
just
wanted
to
define
because
I
don't
know
if
olivia's
answer
was
really
answered
or
question
was
really
answered.
Steve
and
I
want
to
like
just
define
this-
this
very
classic
use
case
where
it's
like.
Okay,
everyone
who
votes
the
the
and
this
is
even
on
their
website,
but
it's
a
very
common
known,
dow
problem.
G
Well,
I
that's
cl
that
should
be
against
the
agreements,
and
so
then
you
have
this
extra
check
that
that's
like
anyone
could
challenge
that
and
then
be
like
that's
not
what
I
agreed
to
in
joining
this
now
and
then
it
would
get
kicked
to
argon
court
or
to
in
this
case
the
gravity
dao,
and
there
would
be
like
say
yes,
you're
right.
That's
that's
not
in
accordance
to
this
agreement,
so
not
possible,
and
so
it
solves
that
kind
of
use
case
and
other
use
cases.
E
So
it
seems
to
me
there
are
three
basic
things:
they're
sort
of
the
human
side
of
this
thing,
the
individual
person
who's
involved
in
it
there's
also
sort
of
the
concern-centric
level,
that
is
to
say
a
person,
who's
working
on
a
particular
project
or
has
invested
a
lot
of
time
in
a
particular
thing
in
in
spiral,
dynamics
and
kim
wilbur
saying
they
have
to
talk
about
this
in
terms
of
ethnocentric.
So
whatever
it
is
that
people
are
heavily
identified
with.
E
I
imagine
that
we
could
come
up
with
different
groups
within
the
tech
community
that
have
different
sets
of
interests
and
then
there's
a
sort
of
world-centric
view,
which
is
to
say
that
of
the
entire
community
as
a
whole
and
or
how
that
whatever
it
is
that
we're
doing
affects
the
world.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is,
it
seems,
like
the
conflict
resolution
group,
is
talking
about
things
without
defining
which
one
of
these
three
populations
were
exactly
speaking
toward
at
any
given
time.
E
And
so
I
find
myself
a
little
bit
confused
about
what
I'm
talking
about.
The
aragon
agreement
seems
like
that's
talking
about
the
community
as
a
whole,
whereas
you
know
the
nvc
stuff
is
more
on
the
human
side.
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
I
I
have
a
really
clear
sense
of
that
as
I'm
having
discussions
along
this
line,
because
I
think
it
would
help
us
to
figure
out
which
particular
use
cases
we
have
or
that
we're
concerned
with,
and
by
documenting
those
use
cases,
then
we
could
target
different
solutions
to
suit
those
use.
E
A
Who
are
we
missing
and
how
do
we
know
when
people
is
excluded,
because
this
is
something
that
that
it's
very
problematic,
because
you
only
know
that
you're
lacking
something
when
you
need
it?
So
how
can
we
be
prepared
for
knowing
how?
What
are
we
missing
without
needing
it
but
like
preventing
it
preventing
the
lack
of
of
something?
So
I
think
this
is
a
very
problematic
issue,
because
it
also
we
will
make
us
have
that
boundary
of
of
of
what
is
this
human
group
of
conflict
managers.
A
A
A
So
I
think
what
we're
going
to
discuss
is
the
second
point
that
talks
about
te
culture,
who
are
we
missing,
and
how
do
we
know?
Who
are
we
missing
in
in
in
our
community,
because
I
feel
that
it's
it's
like
a
visible
thing
that
there
are
people
that
feel
that
they
are
not
like
being
included
in
some
in
some
of
the
activities
of
authorization.
A
But
how
do
we
know
which
are
these
people,
and
how
do
we
know
yeah
if,
if
we
are
missing
them
in
the
organization,
if
we
are
not
recognizing
them,
if
we
are
not
recognizing
them,
how
do
can
we
make
people?
Everyone
feel
included
by
the
decisions
of
the
organization,
because
there's
people
that
sometimes
don't
feel
included
by
some
decisions?
How
this
the
easy
to
see
the
easy
take
would
be
to
add
everyone
on
the
praise,
but
on
the
praise
system.
A
E
The
groups
of
people
that
you
have
and
then
you
figure
out
what
those
people's
needs
are.
Then
you
you
create
structures
that
would
automatically
align
with
those
needs
and
therefore
would
lessen
the
overall
potential
for
for
conflict
now.
On
the
other
hand,
there
are
just
governing
principles
that
we
all
need
to
agree
to
in
the
large
context
of
what
it
is
we're
all
doing
here,
so
not
only
what
happens
with
the
money
and
the
and
all
that.
E
How
did
that
all
happen,
but
also
just
what
are
the
principles
of
the
dow
itself
and
so
on?
So
so
everyone
has
to
to
opt
in
to
those
first
couple
or
you
just
don't
participate,
because
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
you
to
participate
here,
but
at
the
same,
that's
kind
of
at
the
world-centric
level,
but
we
have,
to
kind
of
you
know,
inventory
the
the
people
at
the
layers.
E
However,
many
there
are
further
down,
it
seems
to
me-
and
so
it's
not
just
about
how
they
feel
exactly
feelings,
arise
from
needs
being
met
or
not
met.
And
if
you
don't
know
what
their
needs
are,
and
you
don't
know
who
they
are,
then
how
are
you
going
to
actively
figure
out
how
to
prevent
the
or
service
those
needs.
D
D
The
last
point,
I
think
that
touches
a
little
bit
on
on
the
issues
that
we
submitted
to
the
forum
jeff,
and
I
and
I
talked
to
you
briefly
about
this,
but
then
jeff
also
brought
it
up
of
like
oh,
what
are
the
next
steps
after
submitting
an
issue
for
the
form
and
and
maybe
like?
How
can
we
see
all
together
if
that
conflict
was
resolved
or
not,
does
it
need
anything
else?
E
All
right,
I'd
like
yes
I'd
I'd
like
to
see
that
type
form
be
more
specifically
addressing
the
the
feelings
and
needs
of
the
person
who's
dealing
with
that,
rather
than
trying
to
identify
it.
From
our
perspective,
it's
a
little
bit
like
the
the
q
problem.
When
you
call
up-
and
you
just
said,
you're
a
call
is
important
to
us.
You
know
like
so
the
longer
you
put
off
the
person
expressing
their
need
in
that
form,
the
more
frustrating
it
is
for
them.
A
I
am
really
mad
because
the
center
isn't
working,
but
there
there
is
an
issue
where
I
found
a
document
that
is
a
manual
for
dispute
resolution
centers,
and
it
has
a
lot
of
of
like
material
with
that.
We
can
work
from
in
order
to
make
that
process
of
after
the
the
the
the
the
dispute
was
was
commented
on
the
on
the
type.
A
A
You
can
see
like
how.
How
is
the
commitment
that
the
people
do
when
they
enter
the
the
the
conflict
management
process?
So
I
think
that
a
step
that
is
needed
to
be
done
is
to
like
take
some
of
the
information
that
that
is
in
the
our
own
document
for
the
tech
where,
where
it
says
how
it
of
conflict,
management
and
and
how
are
going
to
be
yeah,
the
the
agreement.
H
A
A
H
A
A
G
Yeah
and
it's
gonna
be
a
complicated
journey
because
I
think
there's
going
to
be
a
part
where
the
mediator
assesses
level
of
the
of
the
conflict
and
then
each
one
has
its
own
little
path.
You
know,
if
it's
you
know
one
person
saying
someone
else's
name
wrong.
I
don't
think
anyone
needs
to
sign
a
form
about
mediation.
You
know,
but
if
it's
like
sexual
harassment,
you
know
the
things
things
get
a
very
different
go
different
route,
so
yeah.
A
A
I
A
No,
I
think
that
what
should
be
signed
by
participants
are
the
terms
and
conditions
that
say:
hey.
You
agree
to
these
terms
and
conditions
that,
if
something
you
can
be
called
to
have
a
mediation
if
you
are
having
a
conflict
with
someone,
but
the
thing
is
that
this
is
not
for
every
conf.
This
is
for
a
strategical
conflict
that
can
be
yeah.
That
can
be
settled
between
with
a
mediation,
because
if
there
is
very
small
things
that
are
said
type,
there
is
no
need
for
mediation.
A
A
I
You
know
and
sense
that
when
conflicts
arise,
or
even
before
I
mean
don't
these
this,
when
those
people
are
trained,
it's
just
fantastic.
I
know
I
mean
I've
been.
I
worked
with
a
lot
of
cultures,
etc
and
when
I,
for
example,
see
what
regis
is
coming
up
with,
etc,
why
not
take
you
know,
take
this
this,
this
very,
very
specific
ability
and
knowledge
that
we
have
in
the
community
and
really
let
those
people,
basically
first
of
all
figure
out
what
kind
of
conflicts
have
ever
arise
in
here.
I
You
know,
let's
not
start
with
the
world
bank,
because
those
guys
have
been
dealing
with.
You
know
a
lot
of
baggage
that,
hopefully
we
won't
drag
in
here
and
yeah,
and
that's
I
mean
because
right
now
I
felt
like
we
are
in
this
dog
fooding
short
term.
Let's
get
this,
you
know,
let's,
let's
make
the
rubber
hits
the
road,
but
don't
break
things.
How
are
we
going
to
have
these?
I
You
know,
I
think
it's
griff
or
fabian's
wording
or
did
the
wording
that
they
brought
in
was
the
swipe
watchers,
and
I
was
just
really
curious
about
it.
So
why
not
go
go
that
path
and
try
it
once
and
actually
gather
experience
with?
How
did
they
work?
How
did
that
work
with
the
people
who
you
know
who
were
wipe
watchers?
I
Did
they
actually
sense
things
before
or
really
there
was
a
conflict
brewing
and
then
they
came
in
but
still
fixed
it?
How
was
the
person
you
know
actually
saying
that
there
is
a
conflict
felt
about
that?
So
why
not
like
go
through
this
experience
together
before
you
know
making
agreements
of
clauses
and
words
that
you
know
we
can
interpret
anything
into
it
and
at
this
stage
in
in
crypto
or
anywhere
I
mean
we've
been
through.
I
I
We
even
have
people
who
would
like
to
do
that.
You
know
like,
for
example,
not
not
work
on
the
document,
but
actually,
for
example,
I
forgot
the
name,
but
what
you
brought
in
with
you
know.
I'm
sorry
and
forgive
me,
you
know
this
type
of
small
exercises,
they're
so
much
more
powerful
and
let's
just
try
them
out,
and
but
you
know
in
a
way
that
actually
can
be
helped,
maybe
through
some
sort
of
technology
as
well.
I
But,
let's
not
focus
on
agreements
papers,
a
lot
of
words
from
other
people
and
also
not
you
know
not
technology
or
tools
that
we
have
now
but
actually
get
the
people
who
who
have
who
have
a
talent
for
this
to
actually
try
it
out
and
let's
share
our
experience,
did
work
what
happened
like
when
I
hear
sanctions
and
so
on.
I'm
like,
oh,
my
god.
Please
don't
send
to
me.
I
So
these
type
of
things
like
I
mean
it's,
not
even
a
conflict
or
thing
but,
like
words,
have
effect
on
people
because
of
their
previous
experiences
and
how
they're
brought
up
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
why
not?
Let's
or
I
mean
it's
super
easy
to
say:
let's
try
this
out,
but
I
think
we
have
sufficiently
capable
and
talented
people
could
facilitate
first
trials,
and
I
don't
think
you
know
in
terms
of
use
and
terms
of
service
and
agreements
get
that
the
legal
side
needs
to
be
close.
But
I
I
was
thinking
the
conflict.
A
A
I
And
could
that
be
part
of
the
onboarding
or
part
of
a
you
know,
skill
tree
session,
where
you
level
up,
if
you
take
such
a
course
or
whatever
workshop
or
so
because
I
mean
just
by
reading
it,
I'm
not
going
to
get
wiser
right.
So
I
we
need
some
sort
of
facilitation,
and
if
we
have
that
process,
we
can
just
go
for
it
and
test
things
out,
but
yeah.
E
In
many
ways,
so
I
would
almost
propose
that
we
have
a
a
group
where
we
actually
practice
what
this
language
actually
is,
and
what
does
it
mean
and
and
how
to
actually
speak
to
each
other
in
this
way
and
try
to
rather
than
just
everyone
being
polite
and
being
heard
there,
there
needs
to
be
some
active
use
of
this
stuff
plus.
I
also
see
that
there
are.
F
E
Things
that
you
could
bring
up
in
the
type
form
like
hey.
I
have
a
strong
feeling
about
some
of
the
structural
things
that
I'm
noticing
about
the
group.
That
might
be
helpful.
That
might
also
just
be
useful
for
people
just
want
to
get
their
input
in
there
and
make
it
known
so
that
could
be
another
sort
of
human
need.
I
just
keep
thinking
we're,
making
a.
F
I
I
need
to
jump.
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment,
or
you
know
just
remark.
So
I
was
a
bit
surprised
that
the
working
group
zero
proposal
landed
in
the
in
the
conflict
group,
and
I
really
wanted
to
ask
like
it
shouldn't
taken
as
a
conflict
like
not
that
working
group,
because
it's
really
something
fundamental.
I
It
was
working
group
zero
because
it
was
literally
the
first
working
group.
We
spun
up
sensing
that
these
are
the
questions
and
you
can
look
in
the
history
and
how
it
changed,
and
I
think
it
has
now
a
very
curated
form
with
fundamental
topics
that
are
of
utmost
interest
to
people
who
are
actually
going
community
first
and
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
build
community
and
then
basically
how
to
let.
I
I
I'm
just
super
happy
that
we
have
these
people
in
the
community
and
it's
going
to
be
a
hell
of
a
sense
making
right.
So
please
don't
take
that
as
a
conflict
or
as
a
when
we
say
ethical
first
I
really
mean
that,
like
software
developers
and
business
architects,
they
don't
learn
ethics
like
class
and
they
heard
about
ethics
was
high
school
if
they're
lucky.
I
H
A
That's
that's
why
I
try
to
to
put
that
here,
because
I
also
feel
that
is-
and
I
really
like
the
scope
of
the
of
that
working
group
of
of
and
the
take
that
I'm
taking
about.
This
call
is
that
more
than
than
than
strengthening
the
system
that
we
need
to
do
it,
we
need
to
keep
working
on
the
human
side
of
the
to
keep
working
on
on.
A
I
Perfect
and,
for
example,
like
parts
that
are
of
interest
to
conflict
management
working
group,
if
you
can,
you
know,
highlight
or
comment
them.
It
would
be
super
helpful
to
just
also
get
on
board
like
what
happened
in
the
past
eight
weeks
or
so,
where
I
just
didn't,
have
as
much
time
really
to
be
on
board.