►
From YouTube: W22 Stewards Council: Stewards WG Transformation Proposal & Advice Process for Comms WG
Description
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
We're
gonna
do
some
reading
of
the
proposal.
So
if
you
hop
in
the
stewards
council
agenda,
you'll
see
the
advice
process
for
tec
stewardship
transformation.
A
To
be
honest,
I'm
not
expecting
anything
in
here
to
be
a
surprise
to
anyone,
so
we've
gone
through
so
many
different
versions
of
advice
process.
I
think
this
is
really
just
a
consolidation
of
a
lot
of
that
thinking.
Please
feel
free
to
hop
in.
A
B
I
cannot
make
comments
on
the
document,
but
what
I
wanted
to
share
is
that
I
think
that
maybe
it
would
be
good
to
write
a
little
bit
more
on
the
nomination
process,
because
I
see
it
in
a
chart,
but
maybe
yeah
it's
not
very
well
detailed
and
it
can
be
like
more
specific.
A
B
Like,
for
example,
when
it
says
determined
by
gardens,
funding
proposal
is
that
the
funding
proposal
should
already
have
the
names
on.
A
A
A
Hey
mitch,
there
is
a
link
in
the
chat
and
in
the
stewart's
channel
for
the
document
that
we
are
reviewing
it's
the
proposal
for
steward
transformation.
C
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
about
10
minutes,
I
don't
know
we
could
also
spend
a
little
more
time
jumping
in
because
the
comments
in
the
margins
are
super
helpful.
A
Okay,
maybe
oh,
we
have
sorry.
We
have
a
minute.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
already
starting
to
have
some
issues
with
my
desktop,
for
which
I
again
apologize,
but
maybe
I
can
ask
somebody
else
to
please.
F
I
think
yeah
internet.
A
A
Okay,
so
that
was
some
time
and
maybe
I
think
it's
worth
us
going
around
and
having
hearing
thoughts
from
people
individually.
So
let's
do
that.
Maybe
if
you
take
one
or
two
minutes,
we
can
have
input
from
from
everyone.
Let's
say
maybe
pass
to
wonka
if
you'd
like
to
go
first.
A
C
Yeah
sure
I'll
go
yeah.
I
think
that
this
is
really
well
put
together,
first
off
and
thank
you
for
going
through
this
process
tam,
because
it's
you
put
a
lot
of
work
into
this,
and
this
is
really
great.
I
guess
the
big
thing
for
me
is
less
on
on
how
we
organize
ourselves,
but
the
impact
it
has
on
current
processes
and
the
transition
point.
C
So
like
there's
a
lot
of
things
changing
and
I'm
just
curious
to
know
how
people
feel
about
the
process
of
transition.
You
know
handing
things
over
making
sure
that
we
all
have
access
rights
to
the
right
things,
and
you
know
the
things
that
we
kind
of
overlook,
but
the
the
structure
of
it,
in
my
opinion,
is
really
fantastic.
C
I
think
having
the
alumni
separated
from
the
advisor
council
is
really
great,
because
those
are
two
very
good
groups
of
individuals
that
we
can
learn
a
lot
from
in
different
capacities
and
then
the
day-to-day
common
stewards
and
working
group
stewards.
I
think
there's
a
dynamic
there
that
we
haven't
really
explored,
but
I'm
really
interested
to
see
how
it
kind
of
turns
out,
but
those
are
just
kind
of
my
initial
thoughts
on
this
and
yeah.
C
A
Okay,
well,
we
can
keep
passing
livia.
Would
you
like
to
go
next.
H
I
don't
know
if
that
makes
sense,
but
the
only
thing
that
worries
me
a
little
bit
is
the
financial
part.
How
many
people
are
we
willing
to
compensate
to
be
more
focused
on
this
role?
I,
like
the
number
that
you
put,
that
is
around
like
three
to
five
people
and
I
think
maybe
we
need
to
discuss
that
within
the
community,
and
maybe
this
is
part
of
that
signal
form
that
we
were
talking
about.
H
F
Thank
you
olivia.
Well,
first,
I
want
to
praise
you
tom,
because
this
is
a
really
great
work.
I
think.
Oh,
it's
very
detailed
and-
and
I
was
thinking
the
same
as
nate-
about
how
people
it's
going
to
fill
the
transition,
especially
the
all
the
community
members
and
token
holders
there.
That,
maybe
is
the
people
who
need
more
boys
here
in
in
this
kind
of
decisions.
F
But
I
I
think
everything
is
going.
Okay
and
observation
is
that
maybe
we
can
do
like
a
kind
of
presentation,
maybe
like
the
one
we
we
did
for
the
hatch
in
in
google
slides,
so
people
can
understand
more
these,
this
transition
and
and
changes,
and
that's
all
for
me,
but
I
think
it's
very
good.
Thank
you
tom,
for
this
and
I'll
pass
it
to
70.
C
Wait
so
could
you
articulate
that
a
little
bit
more,
so
I
think,
in
terms
of
like.
E
Yeah
sure,
like
it's,
like
you,
know,
you're
giving
clear
guidelines
like
you
know,
you're
saying,
like
these
three
people
need
to
coordinate
the
whole
commons.
It's
like
you
know
it's
like
the
old
structure
we
have
since
always,
and
I
I
don't
understand
when
why
we
want
to
do
that.
Yeah,
like
the
reason
of
conviction.
Voting
is
like
everyone
is
doing
their
work
and
we
don't
need
like
someone
to
coordinate
everyone.
You
know
it's
like
having
a
lot.
You
know
it's
having
someone
like
it's,
you
know
covering
the
comments
and
having
three
people
avoiding
it.
H
C
G
I
will
say
I
will
just
comment
on
this
briefly,
I'm
saying
that
we
already
have
this
sort
of
if
we
have
different
levels
here,
something
intrinsic
on
any
organization.
Even
if
we
can
act
like
horizontal,
you
have
hierarchy
of
knowledge,
you
have
hierarchy
socially.
G
You
have
like
grave
comment
versus
my
comment
and
even
even
if
it's
a
social
construction,
it
exists.
I
think
that
what
we
can
do-
and
this
is
what
this
is-
what
this
is
aiming
at
is
to
provide
sense
making
on
not
here
but
in
roles,
and
if
we
create
hierarchy
with
these
new
roles,
then
we
can
address
it
and
prepare
for
it
and
educate
the
community
to
avoid
any
semblance
of
hierarchy
as
a
result
of
these
roles.
But
these
are
only
roles
not
in
interestingly
will
provoke
hierarchy.
E
Actually,
but
turkey
is
normal,
like
when
someone
makes
a
proposal
and
the
proposal
passes,
like
the
the
person
who
made
the
proposal
is
responsible
for
those
funds,
so
it's
creating
a
hierarchy
in
this
proposal
which,
in
my
opinion,
it's
okay
people
who
have
the
responsibilities
of
the
turkey
and
then
the
comments
you
say
about
grief,
it's
based
on
reputation,
which
is
also
okay,
but
in
this
this
changes
like
the
mechanics
of
the
commons
since
you're
saying
like
these
three
people,
are
it's
not
like
they're
leading
their
proposal,
they're
leaving
the
conference,
you
know
it's,
it's
it's
no
way
like
there's
no
way.
G
Okay,
I
understand
that
this
is
the
same
again.
This
is
the
same
way.
This
is
not
governance,
leaving
mention
this
is
guidance
and
yeah.
It's
the
same.
E
It's
insane
in
beautiful
words,
it's
you
can
be
just,
and
this
is
fine,
but
then
you
cannot
believe
in
the
comments
and
solve.
C
It
this
way
so
in
defense
of
zephy's
remarks,
I
will
say
that
you
know
I
I
agree.
That's
having
you
know
three
to
five
people
who
are
guiding,
or
you
know,
pushing
the
direction
of
the
commons
is
not
exactly.
C
You
know
what
I
think
you
have
in
mind
in
terms
of
decentralization,
but
I
also
think
that
decentralization
for
the
sake
of
is
not
the
goal.
I
think
I
think
I
would
much
rather
see
a
very
healthy
commons
being
developed
and
if
it
takes,
you
know
three
to
five
people
working
30
hours
a
week,
really
focusing
on
how
we
develop
the
road
map
guidelines
for
the
future.
C
I
think
that
in
the
short
term,
I
think
that
is
a
really
good
solution
and
as
we
grow
and
get
become
more
sustainable,
I
think
that
can
progress
into
what
we
had
before.
I
think
we
started
off
that
way
and
I
think
it
was
kind
of
a
a
bit
of
a
rough
rough
patch,
because
we
were
all
kind
of
uncoordinated
in
in
a
lot
of
ways,
and
so
I
I
do
think
that
trying
this
out
is
not
going
to
damage
it.
C
E
A
I
just
want
to
add
one
thing
too.
One
of
the
I
would
say,
objectives
of
this
restructuring
or
the
reorganization
is
older,
also
having
greater
accountability.
A
We
have
14
stewards,
it's
hard
to
to
say
you
know,
you
know
where
we
have
failure,
points,
there's
very
little
accountability,
because
there's
just
so
many
of
us
and
the
the
idea.
In
fact,
it's
a
lot
inspired
by
what
you've
shared
septimus.
The
idea
of
having
the
the
proposals
fun
decided
by
the
community
in
gardens
associated
with
specific
stewards,
gives
the
community
a
lot
of
power
over
those
specific
stewards
and
proposals.
A
E
Yeah,
that's
that's
good.
I
mean,
of
course,
the
only
thing
I'm
I'm
not
against.
Like
you
know,
three
people
decide
something.
I'm
gonna
build
something
and
go
and
build
it.
That's
great!
That's
how
it
should
work,
but
for
me,
like
the
scary
part,
is
like
when
you
say
you
know,
this
role
is
in
charge
of
coordinating
the
community
like
the
community.
A
E
A
decentralized
community,
which
is
what
we
are
building
should
coordinate
like
you
know,
everyone
should
have
like
the
word
stream.
According
to
the
mission,
vision
and
values,
and
then
you
know
everyone
is
advancing
like
the
idea
is
like
if
you're
building
a
house
like
if
I'm
working,
I
don't
know
in
the
kitchen
and
then
you're
working
in
the
bathroom,
then
we're
gonna
put
it
all
together.
But
meanwhile
I'm
building
my
part
you're
building
yours
and
we
don't
even
need
to
interact
with
that's
the
idea.
E
E
E
A
F
H
Yeah,
I
think
kind
of
at
this
point
I
think
stewards
were
very
needed
in
the
beginning
of
like
setting
up
the
structures
of
everything
we
have,
but
I
partially
agree
now
that
stewards
are
less
needed
unless,
like
what
I'm
afraid
is
that
would
people
without
the
stewardship
title
stop
engaging
or
like
how
like
would
we
keep
the
operations
moving
if
there
are
no
stewards,
if
everyone
is
contributing
in
the
same
with
the
same
role,
let's
say.
C
C
The
point
of
the
stewards
is
to
having
this
aggregated,
like
understanding
of
where
we're
going
as
a
commons
as
a
whole.
Instead
of
these
individual,
disparate
efforts
that
you
know
right
now,
we
we've
in
the
past
we've
seen
duplication
of
efforts
in
many
ways,
from
the
te
academy
to
the
omega
working
group
to
stewards
working
group
that
are
like
certain
initiatives
that
we've
done
that
have
overlapped
and
we
haven't
caught
on
to
it.
We
haven't
really
paid
attention
to
it.
C
H
G
E
Like
I
really
think
it's
like
key
like
when
you
know
when
someone
is
doing
something
duplicate
like
the
community
should
be
aware
and
crazy,
and
then
we
should.
I
really
think
we
should
have
like
a
rewarding
mechanism
for
people
who
are
actually
providing
some
monitoring,
because
people
is
not
engaging
and
then,
when
you
see
something
duplicate,
you
should
trace
it
see
how
it
can
collaborate,
if
not
who's.
You
know,
then
it
should
be
a
market
like
whoever
do
better
the
job
at
a
cheaper
price.
They
should
get
it
and.
E
D
You
know,
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
about
what
we're
talking
about
here.
Exactly
I
mean,
there's,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
coordinating
coordinating
is
like
the
essence
of
what
we're
about
right.
That's
not
the
same.
D
I
mean
it
could
be
the
same
as
hierarchy
and
management,
if
you,
if
you
mishandle
it,
but
I
think
that
coordination
can
be
done
in
lots
of
different
ways
right.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
hierarchical,
hierarchical,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
top
down
and
I
would
say
zepty
I
mean
I
think
that
your
view
is
like
it's
essential.
I
think
it's
essential
that
we
have
this
kind
of
like
these
differences
of
opinion.
So
I
think
it's
good.
I
don't
agree
with
you
on
this.
D
I
I
think
that
part
of
the
problem
we
have
as
a
commons
right
now
is
that
we've
got
too
many
things
going
on.
So
people
on
the
outside
are
just
confused
when
they
come
here
and
we
as
nate
was
saying,
I
think,
we're
duplicating
resources
and
we're.
You
know
we're
coming
to
a
time
when
we're
gonna
have
to
start
making
some
hard
decisions
about
those
those
resources
and,
and
for
me
the
most
important
thing
is
the
mission.
D
Let
me
just
finish
for
a
second
here.
I
I
just
feel
like
that.
If
we,
if
we
preserve
a
the
kind
of
flexibility,
organizational
flexibility
and
decentralization
and
end
up
destroying
ourselves
and
destroy
the
mission
in
the
process,
that
would
be
a
horrible
horrible
result
for
not
just
this
commons
but
for
the
world.
So
I
think
I
think
we
I
think
coordination
is
going
to
be
really
important
for
us.
D
I
really
do
and
then
tuning
it
in
a
way
so
that
we
prevent
concentration
of
power
and
kind
of
the
old
world
from
creeping
in.
That's
for
me,
that's
what
I'm
most
interested
in
but
like
to
say
there
should
be.
No
stewards
should
be
no
kind
of
like
coordination
at
the
highest
level
of
the
commons
feels
like
overkill
to
me.
E
Yeah,
I
really
want
to
comment
on
that
because
this
is
like
what
you
just
said
is
like
for
me
like
the
worst
part
of
having
these
coordinators,
and
it's
like
you
know,
if
some
work
streams
are
being
useless
or
bad.
Like
you
know,
the
token
holders
should
stop
voting
them
conviction
voting
and
that's
the
way.
It's
you
know
you
stop
funding
useless
work,
but
what
you're
saying
like
having
these
coordinators?
It's
like
these
coordinators
are
going
to
decide
which
is
good,
which
is
bad.
They
will
announce.
B
E
C
But
at
the
moment
there's
no
way
for
token
holders
to
really
understand
you
know
not
not
all
token
holders
have
a
good
insight
onto
what's
going
on
within
the
commons,
and
so
it's
hard
to
say
that
you
know
they
come
to.
You
know
tec
labs,
and
you
know
if
there's
not
much
going
on
they'll,
you
know.
Why
are
we
funding
it?
Maybe,
but
you
know
a
lot.
Most
of
them
won't
understand
that,
and
so
you
need
people
to
really
vouch
for
the
credibility
of
working
groups
and
the
proposals
that
hit
conviction.
Voting.
D
Also,
just
I
just
want
to
correct
a
misunderstanding
of
what
I'm
saying:
zepty,
I'm
I'm
not
saying
move
away
from
voting.
The
community
needs
to
decide
where
and
in
fact
I
think
we
need
more
feedback.
You
know,
besides
just
the
voting,
I
think
that
the
poll
like
pulling
people
on
how
they
feel
about
certain
work
streams
you
know
even
after
they're
funded,
is
important,
like
we
need
more
feedback
like
that.
D
The
idea
that
we'd
have
like
a
central
crew
deciding
everything
is
that's
the
old
world,
but
I
do
think
that
that
central,
you
know
that
coordinating
you
can
call
it
central.
You
can
call
it
whatever
you
want,
but
there
is
some
coordinating
layer
that
I
think
is
necessary
to
take
the
feedback
from
the
community
and
and
coordinate
it
link
it
together
in
ways
that
are
not.
I
mean
human
nature
is
just
not
going
to
allow
that
level
of
integration.
I
just
I'm
sorry
I
just
I'm
not
seeing
it.
D
You
know,
maybe
if
we
had
seen
it
already
in
this
commons.
You
know,
in
a
way
I
mean
we,
we
see
it
to
a
certain
degree
but
like
to
say
to
say
get
rid
of
the
stewards
to
me
feels
premature.
A
Okay,
so
we're
going
from
reorganization
of
the
stewards
to
eliminating
the
stewards
that
escalated
quickly.
I
guess
that
these
are
valid.
These
are
these
are
points
of
view.
You
know,
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
we
could
think
about
from
structurelessness.
A
There
is
also
other
ways
that
we
could
look
at
I
mean
if
we,
I
guess,
the
main
thing
is
this
fear
that
septimus
is
raising.
Perhaps
others
feel
this
as
well
of
a
consolidation
of
power,
and
this
is
not
what
this
reorganization
is
reporting
at
all.
In
fact,
it
gives
power
to
token
holders
to
to
vote
in
stewards
by
funding
proposals
and
vote
them
out
by
ending
funding,
so
I
would
say,
rather
than
centralizing
it
more
decentralizes
the
power
to
the
community,
and
I
also
don't
see
how
we
I
mean.
A
Maybe
we
could
say
like
can
someone
point
to
an
example
of
a
dow
without
stewards?
That's
really
killing
it?
Maybe
it
just
bears
seeing
that
first
hand
to
understand
what
the
points
are
about,
not
having
a
doubt
without
any
leadership,
structure
or
stewardship.
That
would
that
would
help
a
lot
in
for
those
of
us
who
can't
see
it.
H
I
think
there's
something
I
think
I
feel
like
we're
all
talking
about
the
same
thing
actually,
but
we're
giving
different
names
to
it.
So
the
structure
of
the
stewards
as
we
have
like
what
is
a
steward
is
a
compensated
role,
or
is
it
just
some
type
of
badge
in
the
community,
because
if
it
is
a
badge,
that's
kind
of
what
we
have
now,
you
know
like
we
have
a
nomination
process
and
independent
of
compensation.
H
People
can
be
nominated
stewards
or
not,
and
then
I
feel
like
this
created
an
enclosed
group
that
has
been
the
leadership
of
the
commons
for
a
long
time,
but
then,
if
we're
shifting
to
think
that
stewards
are
only
people
who
have
who
are
receiving
compensation
for
the
work
stream
they
are
involved
with.
H
H
This
wouldn't
block
anyone
from
creating
their
own
working
group
if
they
don't
want
compensation
for
that,
and
if
they
want
to
be
like
to
voice
their
opinions
about
the
work
they're
doing
so,
we
would
just
enter
in
this
realm
of
what
is
being
compensated,
what's
not
being
compensated
and-
and
I
think
that
is
a
leadership
structure,
but
it's
very
different
than
what
we
have
now.
It's
already
not
it's
closer
to
not
having
stewards
than
to
to
having
a
small
group
of
people
deciding
for
a
lot
of
things.
C
And
I
I
just
want
to
clarify
that,
because
it's
not
that
you
know
the
the.
I
don't
think
the
commons
stewards
will
be
deciding
a
lot
of
things.
These
are.
You
know,
I
think
the
role
of
the
common
stewards
is
to
guide
to
say,
hey
we're
here
for
advice,
we're
here
for
to
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
that
we
don't
have
those
type
of
overlapping
efforts,
but
also
you
know,
since
the
the
stewards,
the
the
common
stewards
is
a
compensated
rule.
C
I
get
what
you're
saying
livi
anzepti
the
the
the
great
thing
is
is
that
we
can
put
restrictions
and
boundaries
on
this
where
you
know
the
working
group
stewards.
You
know
if
zepty
you're,
leading
transparency
and
an
acid
laser
you're
leading
comms,
like
you
guys,
if,
if
one
of
us
is
not
pulling
our
weight,
I
think
having
a
an
avenue
for
removing
us
from
the
stewardship
of
the
community's
common
stewardship
is,
is
very
possible
and
that
we
could
have
a
rotating.
C
You
know
a
set
of
of
community
stewards
if,
if
need
be,
and
have
have
some
type
of
really
strong
accountability
structures
within
it.
So
I
I
really
think
that
this
is
a
really
interesting
moment
to
experiment
with
stewardship
structures,
and
I
I
don't
think
we
should
be
afraid
of
it.
I
think
I
think
we
should
all
have
the
trust
that
each
of
us
are
going
to
figure
this
out
and
and
and
make
this
comments
a
lot
more
efficient
and
more
productive.
H
I
think
I
think
it's
a
slight
utopia
that
stewards
don't
decide
things.
I
think
the
reality
of
where
we've
been
living
is
that
stewards
have
been
making
most
of
the
decisions
in
the
direction
of
the
dow
and
how
we've
been
organizing
and
what
work
we've
been
prioritizing.
H
I'm
100
pro
the
proposal
that
is
on
the
table
and
I
think
that
would
end
the
hierarchy
structure
we
have
by
creating
these
different
forms
of
like
what
is
being
compensated,
is
decided
by
the
commons
and
what
is
not
being
compensated.
It's
like
a
more
free
based
on
democracy,
leadership,
structure,.
G
Yeah,
I
agree
I
agree,
but
at
the
same
time
I
feel
that
at
some
point
we
are
using
references
of
a
community
or
a
token
holder
that
doesn't
make
like
a
figure
of
speech,
of
of
actions
that
doesn't
exist
or
people
are
not
like
have
never
seen
so
far
a
sort
of
a
mistrust
in
the
decisions
that
has
been
made
being
made
by
the
by
the
store.
So
far
like
I,
and
and
in
general,
there
is
a
sort
of
governance
apathy
in
token
holders.
G
G
G
As
long
as
we
keep
these
things
unchecked
like
if
septics
worry
about
centralization
and
structure
of
power,
okay,
let's
put
in
place
ways
to
to
ensure
that
it's
not
gonna
happen,
and
it
could
be
from
the
community.
It
could
be
from
transparency,
it
could
be
from
any
working
group,
but
at
the
end-
and
this
is
the
last
thing
I'm
gonna
say-
but
at
the
end
it
feels
like
for
me
this
has
this.
This
proposal
has
come
from
a
lot
of
thought
and
the
same
way
I
trust
livy.
On
governance.
G
I
also
decide
to
trust
the
stewards
of
the
stewards
in
in
this
proposal
and
what
they
think
it's
the
best
for
for
for
us.
The
same
way
this
this.
This
has
been
happening
with
other
things,
and
I
think
it
all
has
led
us
to
a
good
place.
So
I
will
just
trust
the
process
and
and
just
make
sure
that
the
descendant
that
is
expressed
is
added
to
this
proposal
in
a
way
that
keep
the
proposal
in
check.
In
case,
we
find
this
sort
of
walls
along
the
way.
A
I
appreciate
all
of
this
thought
and
and
feedback,
and
especially
the
those
who
wrote,
comments,
constructive
comments
in
the
margins
and
as
comments,
so
we
can
incorporate
a
lot
of
this
feedback.
A
So
I
think
that
the
next
step
is
to
just
incorporate
some
of
this
feedback
and
then
post
it
on
a
forum
for
advice
process,
followed
by
snapshot
for
a
cultural
signaling.
C
I
also
just
want
to
state
that
the
I
think
this
once
that
hits
the
forum.
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
debate
to
have
in
front
of
the
community.
I
I
think
this
is
something
that
possibly
could
encourage
engagement
further
too.
So
maybe
we
can
craft
a
really
well
done
debate
on
this
subject.
E
Yeah,
I
think
actually
that
would
be
like
the
best
part
like
if
we
make
it
to
the
forum
and
then
the
community
starts
to
engage.
I
think
it
would
be
like
a
very
cool
debate
and
and
yeah,
let's
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
against,
of
course
like
putting
it
on
the
forum.
This
is
like
this
is
natural.
This
is
great
and
then
we
should
do
it
there,
where
people
have
time
to
think
and
engage
in
a
better
form,
like
forum
is
normally
the
best
place
to
engage
in
political
debates
so
yeah.
E
I
think
the
timing
house
is
a
very
not
the
best.
I
don't
think
if
it's
posted
tomorrow,
I
don't
think
I
could
engage,
but
that
doesn't
mean
you
know,
but
many
people,
like
you
know,
maybe
people
in
this
comments
will
be
a
burning
man.
I
don't
know.
Well,
I
don't
know
everything's
cool.
I
don't
know.
A
Okay,
yeah
yeah
noted
as
well,
although
the
alternative
is
to
wait
five
weeks,
which
I
also
think
isn't
the
best
plan
for
one
two,
three
four
weeks,
we'll
leave
it
up
on
the
forum
and
hopefully
we'll
get
some
engagement
and
then
maybe
it'll
be
more
clear
about
what,
when
it
should
move
to
snapchat
as
well.
A
Okay,
if
there's
any
last
thoughts,
anyone
wants
to
share.
Please
do
so
otherwise,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
topic,
and
I
apologize.
B
Yeah
thanks
sam
well,
I
I
value
everyone's
point
of
view
and
it's
a
super
interesting
discussion
and
like
there's,
no
one
absolute
answer,
and
I
also
think
that
transitions
are
good
and
maybe
this
proposal
is
a
transition
from
where
we
were
and
it
can
leave
us
at
other
point
where
we
can
transition
to
a
more
decentralized
way,
because
I
also
agree
with
septi
that
maybe
centralization
is
can
be
a
bad
for
our
organization.
B
So
I
also
think
that
it,
it
should
be
a
rewarded
role,
because
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
that
it's
just
on
that
and
also
that
we
need
visible
people
that
can
be
points
of
contact
for
the
community
and
yeah.
I
think
there's
no
one
perfect
solution,
but
I
think
that
we
are
doing
it
good,
and
this
is
a
more
decentralized
approach
that
from
where
we
come
from.
B
So
I
think
it's
a
step
towards
the
centralization,
even
though
that
the
total
decentralization
can
be
something
that
we
want
to
achieve,
but
can
be
also
something
that
can
lead
us
also
to
the
tyranny
of
of
structurelessness
so
yeah.
I
also
agree
that
some
kind
of
a
structure
is
good
and
and
yeah.
For
me,
it's
an
interesting
discussion,
and
I
also
think
that
I
will
support
the
proposal,
even
though
I
I
also
agree
with
septi
on
on
on
what
would
be
the
ideal.
The
centralized
way
to
manage
commons.
C
In
terms
of
the
the
implementation
of
such
a
proposal,
can
we
include,
like
a
revisiting
of
the
structure
and
evaluation
for
this.
A
Okay,
there's
only
five
minutes,
but
this
is
too
important
a
topic
to
to
not
let
all
voices
be
heard.
Is
there
any
other
comments?
Anyone
would
like
to
make.
A
Okay,
all
right,
in
that
case
acid,
with
six
minutes,
would
you
like
to
present
the
advice
process
that
you're
asking
for
the
comms
working
group,
and
maybe
just
everyone?
Thank
you
so
much.
These
were
really
really
good
points
and
perspectives,
and
I
think
everyone's
perspective
is
valid
and
should
be
taken
into
account
to
make
this
organization
and
our
stewardship
as
strong
as
it
can
be.
F
Can
I
can
be
fast?
Well,
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
some
context
and
if
you
want
to
give
some
comments
in
this
document
that
I
share
in
the
in
the
chat
feel
free
to
do
it.
So
the
state
of
comms
comes.
Is
it's
going
to
pass
through
some
changes
and
evolution
because,
as
soon
as
you
know,
there
has
been
some
trouble
that
with
the
on
gardens,
especially
with
the
te
academy
team
and
the
translations
one?
F
So
I
I
thought
we
I
talked
with
edu
and
tom
about
this,
and
tom
advised
me
to
do
this.
A
document
for
you
guys
give
me
some
advice
about
this
situation
in
this
document.
F
A
A
C
I
I
read
this
last
night,
I
said
you
did
a
great
job
and
thank
you
for
doing
it.
I
really
like
the
ideas
of
consolidating
some
of
the
teams
and
and
kind
of
just
refocusing
and
making
it
a
little
bit
more,
simpler
and
less
complex,
and
so
that
you
have
kind
of
these
aggregated
groups
and
and
kind
of
bring
people
back
in
you
know,
so
I
I
really
appreciate
you
doing
that
work.
F
Thank
you.
I
think
that
my
major
problem
here
is
the
academy
team
money
that
it's
left
to
pay
india
and
then
because
I
think
this
is
a
confusion
topic
that
engine
and
I
have-
and
I
was
not
alert
of
this-
and
I
don't
know
what
we
can
do-
because
it's
too
much
money.
F
F
A
A
Sorry,
I
just,
I
think
what
would
help
is
if
we
understood
clearly
that
the
back
pay
was
a
one-time
event
and
would
not
happen
again
would
not
continue
to
happen
so
perhaps
being
clear
that
the
back
pay
stops
and
any
future
work
that
would
come
from
a
budget
for
anatek
and
angie
berry
because
it
would
be
it
would,
I
think,
be
negative.
If
we
had
to
then
do
another
back
pay
estimate,
you
know
what
I
mean
if
we
had.
If
we
kept
doing
it
that
way,
it
would
be
negative
overall
yeah.
A
Is
it
clear
that
this
back
pay?
This
one
proposal
is
a
one-time
thing
and
then
this
te
academy
would
not
have
to
con
that
took
an
energy.
The
team's
tea
team
would
not.
Con
would
not
have
to
make
another
proposal
for
additional
back
pay.
Is
that
clear,
like
today,.
C
Yeah,
I
didn't
get
that
from
the
proposal
that
was
on
the
garden.
So
perhaps
perhaps
you
you
we
we
take
the
that
proposal
down
and
and
we
re-uh
submit
it
in
a
way.
That's
kind
of
retroactive
funding
for
these
individuals.
G
I
would
suggest
that
this
is
a
sensible
topic,
the
took
engineering
academy
team
and
I
will
suggest
that
this
this
is
handled
in
a
very
careful
way.
So
we
don't,
we
don't
get
seen
as
we
are
closing
the
team
because
of
anything
else.
Just
that's
my
comment
on
the
academy.
G
I
think,
maybe,
as
laser
next
monday
during
comes
call,
we
can
also
or
any
time
slot.
If
you
can
welcome
everyone
to
keep
this
conversation
happening.
I
think
it
would
be
really
productive
too.
Okay,.