►
From YouTube: W2 Stewards Council: WGs funding proposals
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Offboarding stewards
23:17 - WG proposals
43:39 - Last thoughts
🙏 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
It
you
know,
since
we
looked
at
the
mission,
vision
and
value
yesterday,
I'm
gonna
just
like
skip
that
today,
but
there
is
a
intro
question
that
I
would
like
us
to
talk
about
and
I
think
it's
important
and
I
think
it's
even
more
important
now
and
it
is
off-boarding
stewards.
You
know
we.
We
now
have
a
number
of
stewards
who
aren't
actually
very
active
and
what
does
a
gentle
exit?
Look
like
the
question.
A
One
of
the
solutions
that
I
think
is
really
elegant
is
just
time-bound
stewardship,
so
you
are
nominated
to
be
a
steward.
You
are
steward
for
three
months
and
then
your
your
stewardship
expires,
and
you
can,
you
know,
revalidate
your
stewardship
without
some
sort
of
statement,
a
mission
statement
or
a
statement
of
why
you
want
to
continue
and
something
like
that,
but
some
some
structure
so
that
stewards
can
can
become
more
of
a
fluid
role
than
something
you
become
and
then
even
after
you've
kind
of
exited
the
community.
A
A
So
I
hope
everyone
heard
that
intro
question.
I
see
people
have
been
coming
in
I'll,
say
it
very
fast.
The
question
the
intro
question
is
time-bound
stewardship
or
other
ideas
to
keep
stewardship
active
and
and
to
help
people
exit
their
role
in
a
graceful
and
elegant
way
when
they
are
no
longer
active
as
stewards
in
the
tec.
A
A
C
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
My
thoughts
are,
I
think
we
discussed
this
a
few
times,
but
I
think
we
came
to
the
consensus
that
being
a
steward
is
someone
that
is
in
the
know
of
what
is
happening
in
the
tc.
So
sometimes
we
have
that
fuzzy
line
between
like
oh
is
this:
does
a
steward
has
to
be
a
working
group
lead
or
not,
and
I
think
we
came
to
the
point
where
it
doesn't
need
to
be
a
working
group.
C
Lead
people
can
be
transiting
around
multiple
working
groups
and
still
have
this
fair
knowledge
about
everything
happening,
and
I
think
there
are
a
few
rituals
that
we
set
up
for
people
to
participate
and
for
us
to
continue
to
have
this
passing
of
information
between
so
many
nodes
that
we
have.
So
we
can
consider
each
working
group
as
a
node,
but
also
there
is
some
like
fronts
of
work
that
are
happening,
that
some
people
are
knowledgeable
about
that
and
they
would
be
able
to
inform
each
other
when
we
come
together.
C
So
I
think
whenever
a
person
loses
the
ability
to
do
that,
to
be
like
a
great
point
of
information
for
a
certain
stream
or
for
a
large
set
of
events,
then
I
don't
think
that
person
is
a
steward
anymore
and
I
think
there
is
a
bit
of
a
social
pressure
with
that
that
we
talked
about
a
few
times
of,
like
this
fear
of
dying,
this
fear
of
losing
recognition
among
people
and
how
maybe
we
can
reframe.
That
is
that,
and
no
one
would
lose
anything.
It's
just
they're.
C
Moving
into
other
aspects,
someone
that
is
not
so
active
in
the
tc
anymore,
might
be
opening
active
points
and
other
places
of
their
life,
and
that
should
be
like
equally
respected.
So
we
don't
create
this
like
social
hierarchy
or
who
is
a
steward
or
not
is
is
just
the
role
that
a
person
is
fulfilling
at
that
time.
C
C
So
I
think
just
having
that
and
same
with
jazz.
So
I
think
just
having
that
conversation
and
approaching
in
a
way
that
it's
very
gentle
and
just
like
up
to
the
facts
of
like
how
have
you
been
feeling
in
this
world.
Do
you
feel,
like
you,
energized
this
role
and
and
then
offering
an
off-boarding
session
of
like
mostly
gratitude
and
acknowledging
the
contributions
that
this
person
made
in
this
role
for
this
time
and
then
moving
forward
and
removing
the
tag
on
on
this
court?
C
A
C
Okay,
just
to
close,
I
think,
similarly
to
how
we
approach
people
when
we
want
to
nominate
them
as
stewards.
It
should
be
as
simple
as
that
for
nominating
someone
as
a
steward,
so
maybe
having
a
quick
advice
process
within
the
group
or
like
a
quality
consent
process
that
it
doesn't
need
to
be
posted
on
a
forum
or
anything.
Just
like
a
chat
within
the
stewards
group
and
now
pass
to
griff.
A
D
I'm
excited
to
see
what
other
people
other
ideas
come
up.
I
really
liked
tam's
idea
of
having
a
set
time
frame
and
maybe
even
like
more
like
a
quarterly
schedule
or
some
kind
of
schedule
where
it's
like
you
know
we
have
a
shake-up,
we
have
a
steward
shake-up.
Maybe
we
have
a
cap
on
the
number
of
stewards,
that's
possible.
D
Maybe
it
would
be
also.
I
think
that
we
will
find
a
lot
of
value
in
having
a
stewards
multisig,
for
instance
like
a
safe,
that
has
certain
roles
and
responsibilities
within
our
dow
and
that
like,
along
with
the
discord
label,
there
can
be
like
hey
every
every
three
months
or
every
four
months.
We
have
this
like
ceremony,
where
we,
you
know,
elect
the
new
stewards
and
then,
and
probably
just
within
the
stewards
group.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
big
like
tec
vote.
D
D
We
can
extend
the
number
if
we'd
like
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
set
number,
but
it's
it's
nice
if
it's
if
we
set
it
up
so
that
there's
a
cap
because
then
it's
like
well,
we
have
to
exclude,
because
there's
cap
right
and
also
these
set
time
periods
to
elect
means
like
okay,
well,
yeah,
you
know
the
last
two
months
you
haven't
been
around
so
sorry,
you
know
it's
okay,
nothing,
personal
and
then,
but
what's
important
is
the
off-boarding
ceremony.
You
know
like
we're.
It's
like.
D
I
think,
olivia
mentioned
it,
and
we
talked
about
this
in
some
call
or
something
where
it's
like.
You
know,
celebrating
the
life
right.
It's
like
when
someone
leaves
something,
it's
so
scary,
because
it
kind
of
hits
on
that
taboo
of
death.
You
know,
and
it's
like
their
death
in
that
role,
and
so
what
how
do
we?
D
How
do
we
manage
that
as
a
culture
you
know
as
humans,
we
usually
have
a
ceremony
to
to
celebrate
the
life
in
the
time
that
that
person
had
in
that
role-
and
I
think
that's
a
really
important
aspect
of
it
too-
is
to
like
thank
them
and
and
congratulate
them
just
like.
I
think,
I'm
just
mostly
echoing
livia,
because
we
talked
about
this
a
couple
times
and
I'll
pass
it
to
wanker.
E
Maybe
someone
that
approaches
the
other
person
and
and
and
and
yeah
is
the
one
that
that
that
can
know
if
the
other
person
is
agrees
or
not
with
with
this
of
boarding,
but
because
I
think
all
should
be
like
communicated
and
a
voluntary
process
as
the
same
way
that
someone
joins
in
goodwill.
They
should
be
also
feeling
and
recognizing,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
of
responsibility
to
to
say
when
we
are
and
to
recognize
when
we
are
no
longer
delivering
our
best,
so
so
yeah.
E
What
the
only
thing
that
I
don't
agree
is
if
we
like
remove
them
like
on
force.
I
think
that
that
or
like
without
telling
them,
I
think,
yeah.
I
agree
with
having
an
offboarding
ritual
where
we
can
like
continue
saying
like
yeah.
This
doesn't
mean
that
you're
no
longer
part
of
the
community
and
that
we
can
still
be
friends.
It's
just
that
these
move
fast
and
I'll
pass
to
meech.
F
Thanks,
thank
I
really
agree
with
the
point
of
just
finding
a
way
to
off
board
these
stewards.
I
think
the
three-month
review
process
is
great,
just
like
a
checkup,
and
I
wonder
if
there's
just
like
a
minimum
below
that
for
like
no
participation
where
we
could
also
consider
it,
but
I
don't
have
more
details.
I
like
the
offboarding
session
as
well.
I
don't
have
any
original
ideas
to
add
to
this
conversation,
but
I
like
it
so
I'll
pass
it
on
to
somebody
who
might
have
some
stuff
to
contribute
eduardo.
G
G
Time,
for
example,
is
to
rotate
in
between
the
working
group
lead
and
or
the
working
group
coordinator,
where
we
don't
call
it
the
other
role
and
and
the
steward
in
a
way
that
it
becomes
sort
of
a
flow
that
allows
other
working
other
members
of
the
working
group
to
acquire
more
responsibility.
If
the
working
group
feels
like
that
and
like
some
rotation
in
between
the
roles,
so
it's
not
only
to
excuse
the
person
of
chemistry,
but
also
to
give
some
air
to
or
change
of
our
responsibilities.
G
G
We
have
two
roles
in
the
in
the
working
group,
which
is
the
store,
and
the
other
one
is,
is
the
kind
of
lead
or
representative
whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
Then,
every
three
months
we
can
check
if
it
is
possible
to
rotate
so
the
lead
becomes
a
steward
and
the
story
becomes
lead.
So
in
a
way
we
sort
of
create
a
flow,
and
we
give
access
to
other
peoples
who
become
a
steward
for
a
period
of
time.
If
it's
needed
not
mandatory.
It's
just
like
a
suggestion
for
another
alternative
for
off-boarding
someone.
G
I
do
believe
that
it
could
be
really
nice.
I
remember
from
hatcher
outreach
to
also
with
a
three
month
period
to
sort
of
give
a
it
could
be
nice
to
just
like
pass
on
to
whoever
gonna
be
and
to
celebrate
in
a
small
call,
probably
20,
30
minutes
or
something
like
that
that
the
students
are
present
to
celebrate
that
person
and
to
sort
of
for
the
boarding
that
could
be
interesting
to
you.
So
I
will
pass
it
on
to
nade.
H
Thanks
eduardo
yeah,
so
I
wish
you
know
I
wish
we
didn't
have
to
distinguish
between
these
roles
in
terms
of
like
them,
holding
certain
privileges
or
certain
aspects
like
I
wish
you
could
just
become
a
steward
based
on
a
baseline
of
requirements
and
then
ease
out
when
you
no
longer
have
that
baseline
of
requirements
without
any
type
of
onboarding
or
off-boarding
process.
In
the
first
place.
H
I
think
that
going
through
that
nomination
process
and
off-boarding
process
is
kind
of
a
it's
a
huge
bump
and,
like
I
like
the
idea
of
having
time-bound
roles,
especially
if
we
do
have
distinctions
or
like
different.
You
know,
qualities
within
these
roles
like
I
would
love
to
see.
None
of
the
stewards
be
working
group
leads.
I'd
rather
see
working
group
leads
have
that
realm
of
responsibility
within
that
particular
niche
area
and
stewards
be
able
to
you,
know,
guide
decision
making
and
to
link
the
working
groups
together
to
make
decisions.
H
H
A
I
would
love
to
hear
more
ideas
about
this
idea
of
sort
of
what
it
would
look
like
this
automation
of
you
know
acquiring
stewardship
or
not
not
maybe
within
this
call,
but
I
I
can
court,
I
can
start
to
imagine
what
that
could
look
like,
but
yeah.
I
guess
for
the
purpose
of
this
call.
We
should
move
on
with
the
idea
of
how
we
off-board
stewards.
I
I
And
I
would
suggest
maybe
involving
gravity
at
some
point
in
the
in
the
off-boarding
process
and
especially
if
there's
like
any
kind
of
conflict,
and
I
would
also
suggest
that
also
like
former
stewards
to
be
involved
in
in
in
a
way
in
the
in
the
ceremony.
That's
gonna
be
a
few
months,
and
I
feel
that
their
input
can
can
also
be
really
good,
and
it
can
always
be
good
for
retrospective
if
they
are
not
participating
anymore
yeah.
B
Yeah
thanks
judy
yeah,
I
I
I
would
yeah.
I
really
like
the
idea
that
I'm
just
about
automatization
and
I
think
yeah
it
should
be.
You
know
like
like
like
a
job.
You
are
there
you're
here
so
you're
doing
this
and
when
you're
not
here,
you're
not
doing
this.
So
it's
fine.
You
know
like
no
one.
Ever
I
don't
know
people
I
mean
I
don't
know
like
people
do
not
complain
when
they're
leaving
a
job,
it's
it's
fine,
it's,
okay
and,
and
then
I
have
one
thing.
I
do
not
know
how
to
solve.
B
B
To
us
we're
talking
about
multi-six
and
I
think
well,
I
I
don't
think
that
I
think
we're
adding
politics
in
into
the
stores
and
giving
them
every
time
more
power
and
yeah,
I'm
fearful
to
that
and
yeah.
Regarding
the
off-boarding,
I
I
would
set
up
rules
and
I
think
stewardship
shouldn't
have
like
any
privilege
at
all
like
it
should
okay,
this
is
the
people
who
is
more
involved,
who
know
more
and
it's
a
way
to
make
newcomers
to.
Okay,
I'm
reaching
this
person
because
he's
a
steward.
B
He
is
more
involved,
so
he
might
know
something
that
I
I
don't
know
and
yeah.
It
should
be
more
like
this,
like
just
to
coordinate
the
like
the
economy,
but
at
some
point,
like
you
know
at
some
point
in
the
future
like
maybe
when
we're
talking
about
engineers
is
hard
to
say,
but
if
we're
talking
about
roads
like
okay,
this
is
the
stuart
team
of
the
roads.
Of
I
don't
know
barcelona,
and
this
is
the
stuart
team
of
tarragona,
and
you
know
all
these
things
can
live
together
and
yeah.
A
Okay,
cool
well
thanks
everyone
for
that,
a
lot
to
take
into
actually
and
yeah
all
right.
I
hope
to
make
a
proposal
for
our
stewards
in
the
next
sprint
and
maybe
get
start
taking
some
actions
with
this
too
okay.
So
we
spent
some
time
on
that,
but
the
main
focus
was
around
crunching.
The
numbers
for
this
council
was
around
focus
crunching,
the
numbers
for
the
working
group
funding
there
are
a
few
drafts
already
and
the
one
for
communitas
is
in
progress.
A
It's
not
ready,
yet
the
one
for
labs
is
also
in
progress,
but
essentially
it
would
be
three
three
persons
and
then
legal,
I
think,
we'll
have
from
santi
and
omega,
I'm
not
sure
yet,
but
what
we,
if
I
just
put
them
into
here,
to
sort
of
see
like
this
three-month
projection
for
these
three
that
are
ready
and
gravity
from
what
I
understood.
There
was
no
proposal
to
the
dow
in
terms
of
funding
for
the
gravity
group.
That's
what
I
understood
from
this
draft
or
when
I
saw
it.
A
E
A
And
so,
if
I
look
at
this,
I
see
numbers,
but
I
don't
see
like
a
time
period.
Is
this
monthly
or
I
see
this
is
procession?
Oh,
this
is,
can
can
you
yeah,
I
guess
yeah.
Sorry,
I
just
wanna
the
the
the
result
is:
what
would
be
the
funding
proposal
that
gravity
would
submit
to
the
dao
after
the
commons
upgrade
for
three
months
six
month,
funding
for
gravity.
E
A
Okay
got
it,
so
I'm
just
gonna
put
like
three
three
something
like
that
right,
because
I'm
just
doing
a
three
month
looking
at
just
three
months
at
a
time,
probably
we
can
do
six
months
in
one
month
too.
Okay,
all
right,
okay
and
then
the
graviton
training
would
be
a
separate
proposal.
It
wouldn't
be
part
of
the
sort
of
continuous
operations
of
gravity.
E
No,
I
was
thinking
like
we
can
continue
making
like
open,
graviton
trainings,
but
we
can
offer
also
like
tailored
graviton
trainings
for
organizations
so
that
they
request
it
them
and
yeah.
I
I
wasn't
thinking
actually
in
charging
the
the
all
the
graviton
trainings,
but
more
the
ones
that
are
focused
on
one
organization,
but
to
continue
fostering
the
graviton
trainings
to
some
open
ones
to
be
like
gathering
points
for
different
communities
and
also
to
help
us
outreach
other
communities.
E
E
It's
a
fraction,
it's
like.
Sometimes
you
are
not
going
to
have
like,
and
this
is
what
I
have
seen
that
there
are
like
peaks
of
conflict
and
moments
of
conflict
and
moments
of
more
calm.
So,
if
you
are
going
to
face
a
difficult
decision
in
your
dao
or
something
is
happening,
you
can
have
like
two
month
insurance
and
not
having
the
the
yearly
insurance.
If
you
like,
foresee
that
in
some
time
you're
going
to
need
this.
E
E
E
I
I
have
been
like
approximating
it
and
I
think
it's
it's
good
that
that
would
be
fair
and
that
way
we
can
manage
like.
If
someone
manages
five
cases
in
a
month.
That's
that's
like
a
thousand
I
and
I
think,
that's
that's
good,
and
also
we
will
be
like
in
this
funding
pool.
We
will
be
receiving
also
from
git
coin.
We
will
yeah
try
to
participate
in
grants
and
stuff
like
that
to
have
like
our
funding
pool,
and
then
we
reward
the
gravitons
on
on
their
activities.
A
A
E
That
should
be
always
done,
and
also
maybe
we
can,
with
with
with
our
funds
we
can
like
yeah,
maybe
get
some
third-party
help
on
some
things
like
maybe
we
could,
with
with
our
funding,
pool
reach
a
like
an
agreement
with
the
t
comes
dow,
so
that
they
manage
our
twitter
and
that
they
help
our
our
communication
strategy
for
three
months
and
and
yeah.
My
idea
is
to
to
yeah
to
have
a
separate
economy
within
within
within
gravity.
E
Well,
yeah,
it's
more
or
less,
and
I
think
that,
like
all
like,
all
changes
require
some
risk,
and
initially,
if
I
like,
if
gravity,
only
stays
in
the
dc,
these
numbers
would
would
be
like
actually
short
for
what
we
are
doing
right
now.
But
what
I
imagine
is
that
if
we
get
to
outreach
more
communities,
then
that
funding
pool
will
grow
and
that
way
we
will
be
able
to
to
recognize
better
some
of
of
yeah
of
the
work
that
is
being
done
so
so
yeah.
A
A
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to.
I
went
with
for
the
stewards
I
went
with
the
middle
number,
though
I
think
there's
going
to
be
some
changes
in
that
specifically
because
of
this
stewards,
off-boarding
process.
I
think
it's
actually
going
to
end
up
being
a
little
lower
than
this,
maybe
probably
but
okay.
I
guess
thoughts
on
that.
I'm
going
to
pass
around
again
and
maybe
see.
Do
we
have
right?
Oh
yeah,
maybe
it's
it's
worth
doing
comes
too
so
chewy.
What
I
what
I
added
was.
A
I
A
I
Yes,
I
actually,
it
was
some
of
our
topics
on
on
on
the
last
comes
working
group
call,
and
in
order
like
to
prevent,
like
some
hierarchy
figures,
I
don't
know
if
to
call
them
that,
but
before
before
before,
we
can
have
like
separate
projects
that
that
say,
like
the
full
19
die
a
per
hour.
I
was
thinking
of
maybe
absorbing
some
of
these
some
of
these
contributions
with
a
bounty
system.
I
I
feel
that
a
bounty
system
will
be
more
compatible
for
newcomers
so
that
they
can
start
getting
like
a
better
idea
on
in,
like
with
with
small
assignments
and
once
they
have
more
experience
and
are
more
familiar
with
token
engineering
and
all
of
this.
Maybe
that
could
be
a
better
way
to
assign
project
managers
and
project
managers
would
be
able
to
apply
for
for
funding
for
bigger
projects.
I
A
That
whole
time
shoot
yeah
I'll
drop
it
in
here.
I
think
everyone
should
have
access
to
it
and
sorry
that
it's
misnamed,
I
was
working
on
it
for
the
work
for
the
stewards,
working
group,
okay,
so
new
proposal
with
comms
next
week-
excellent
and
then
maybe
transparency-
should
we
go
through
that
one
too.
B
B
A
Okay,
so
then
I
just
took
this
number
I
took
the
middle,
I
think
I
took
800
and
then
multiplied
it
by
12
and
by
two
to
come
up
with
19
200
just
so
we
can
start
to
have
some
idea
of
the
the
proposals
that
will
be
requested
to
the
dow
all
right,
so
there's,
probably
not
much
more
than
for
us
to
to
speak
about.
Maybe
we'll
I'll.
Just
keep
updating
this
as
we
have
better
ideas,
so
we'll
have
some
ballpark
about
what
what
we're
looking
at
does
I'd
like
to
just
see.
A
I
C
H
H
And
if
that's
the
case,
then,
are
we
basing
this
the
numbers
that
each
working
groups
are
using
off
of
what
they
need
to
be
paying
their
contributors,
or
are
we
basing
it
off
of
like
this?
Is
the
type
of
funds
that
we'll
need
to
build
up
the
infrastructure
to
get
our
working
group
off
the
ground
and
functioning
like,
I
think,
there's
just
kind
of
a
blurred
line
of
distinction.
There.
C
Yeah,
maybe
I
can
answer
that
but
happy
to
hear
other
opinions.
True,
since
we
don't
really
have,
and
we
don't
really
know
how
much
each
person
would
be
able
to
get
from
the
reward
systems,
because
we
basically
don't
have
like
a
functioning
economy.
Yet
it's
interesting
to
have
all
of
these
proposals
to
see
what
is
going
to
work.
C
A
H
It
does
yeah.
I
just
worry
that
you
know
if
the
reward
system
is
not
completely
there
yet,
and
the
working
group
funding
is
used
mostly
for
compensating
contributors,
which
I
think
is
should
be
okay,
because
if
we
don't
have
kind
of
that
compensation
aspect
early
on
we're
going
to
lose
a
lot
of
new
contributors
that
are
joining
the
space
now
because
of
this
kind
of
expectation
that
our
assumption
that
they
have
that,
once
we
get
funding
and
stuff
like
that,
that
they'll
be
taken
care
of
but
yeah.
Those
are
my
only
concerns
with
it.
D
I
do
think
we
just
have
to
do
the
best
we
can,
and
personally
I
would
prefer.
I
would
prefer
that
everyone
just
assumed
that
there
is
no
extra
reward
system,
because
I
would
rather
see
the
extra
funds
sitting
in
the
hands
of
the
working
groups
that
they
can
budget
with,
as
opposed
to
not
having
enough
funds,
because
you
overestimate
the
reward
system.
D
That's
my
personal,
like
suggestion,
and
then,
like
you
know,
when
you
have
extra
funds,
and
you
can
take
that
in
when
you,
when
we
have
an
understanding
of
what
the
reward
system
ends
up
being
and
what
that
ends
up,
how
that
ends
up
working
then
we
can.
You
can
just
have
some
extra
float
in
your
working
group.
A
Yeah,
okay,
I'd
like
to
just
pass
around
for
closing.
I
have
nothing
else,
because
we,
we
are
still
getting
numbers
together,
so
maybe
just
pass
around
and
any
final
thoughts
and
if
we
end
early,
we
end
early
so
I'll
pass
to
juan
carlos.
If
you
have
anything
else
to
add
or
to
share
the
stories
about
the
this
funding
and
reward
system
and,
most
importantly,
really
like
making
sure
that
our
contributors
are
appreciated
and
rewarded
for
the
contributions
that
there
will
be
doing
these
next
few
months.
E
A
H
Yeah,
I
agree
with
mitch
on
that
and
the
I
guess.
The
one
thing
that
I
have
a
concern
about
is
making
sure
that
the
working
group
leads,
who
are
the
stewards,
really
focus
on
organizing
the
the
contributors
within
their
groups
and
making
sure
that
they
know
how
to
enter
these
types
of
pseudo
work
agreement
type
things
and
how
to
manage
it
properly,
because
you're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
new
people
coming
in
going
hey,
I'm
a
contributor,
but
perhaps
they're
not,
and
it's
a
it's
a
tight
tight
rope
to
walk.
H
B
E
B
Like
what
we
need,
at
least
for
these
working
groups,
keep
functioning
and
and
yeah
the
world
contributors,
I
think
it's
important,
so
they
don't
live
and
when
we
started
off
actually
and
if
the
people
is
getting
rewarded
by
the
reward
system.
You
know
every
small
dog
can
also
adjust
it
to
it
like.
If
they
get
over
compensate,
we
can.
We
can
still
do
adjustments
and
yeah.
C
C
I
think
it
kills
the
whole
pleasure
and
life
and
connection
of
it,
like
the
the
rituals
we've
been
building
for
people
to
get
in
and
out
of
roles
and
having
moments
to
discuss
and
having
the
social
point
being
the
most
important
point,
like
we're
all
tired
of
automation,
you
know
like
how
can
we
be
more
human?
That's
that
has
been
the
whole
point,
and
I
would
be
really
sad
if
we
kill
that
and
I'll
pass
to
I'll
pass
to
them.
A
I
think
that
there's
you
know,
I
there's
been
lots
of
discussions
that
I've
heard
in
you
know
in
common
stack
and
source
cred
and
many
different
communities
around
this
idea
of
sociocratic
and
circles
and
autonomy
and
in
some
ways
each
of
these
working
groups.
Griff
has
mentioned
this
before.
Are
it's
their
own
little
startups
right,
they'll
have
their
own
budget
they'll
have
to
manage
their
their
contributors.
All
these
points
that
we
raised
and
there
won't
be
one
right
way
for
everyone
to
do
it
in
the
same
way.
A
So
it's
going
to
be
very
much
up
to
the
dynamics
of
each
of
these
working
groups
to
develop
their
own
way
and
to
share
best.
You
know
what
works
with
other
working
groups
and
what
isn't
working
with
other
working
groups
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
sort
of
transversal
stewardship
right.
So
we
can
all
share
and
learn
from
each
other,
but
that
it
like
the
the
autonomy
should
really
rest
with
each
working
group
and
they'll
have
different
cadences.
A
You
know
there
there
might
be
some
where
it
makes
sense
to
participate
in
sprint
planning
as
a
larger
group
and
some
that
doesn't
there
are
some
that
are
services
to
other
dows
and
some
that
are
really
only
focused
on
tec
and
not
paying
attention
to
anything.
That's
going
around
in
other
downs,
so
I
think
acknowledging
and
respecting
the
very
different
needs
and
objectives
of
each
working
group
is,
is
sort
of
going
to
be
crucial
to
this.
So.
A
Big
fan
of
of
all
of
the
working
groups
looking
inward
and
just
determining
what
would
be
best
for
the
the
people
that
contribute
to
making
that
working
group
alive
and
to
make
that
working
group
efficient
and
successful
and
then
proposing.
What's
best
for
for
their
working
group
and
I'll
pass
to
eduardo.
G
Thank
you
tim.
Besides,
what
everyone
has
said,
there's
only
a
few
things
that
concern
me
one.
It's
the
timing
of
when
this
funding
proposals
came
alive
and
when
the
when
the
reward
system
comes
alive,
because
if
there
is
a
missed
timing
in
when
these
two
things
happened,
we
could
have
people
having
like
work
done
and
then
not
rewarded
by
the
reward
system,
but
they
are
not
included
on
the
budget
that
the
funding
proposal
because
they
arrive
late.
G
So
I
will
like
take
time
to
inform
the
community
about
how
we
came
across
these
funding
proposals
and
what
it
includes.
So
everyone
has
like
kind
of
this
awareness,
so
yeah.
That's
the
only
thing
that
I'm
like
just
a
little
bit,
hesitant
about
the
timings
of
execution
of
reward
system
and
and
these
funding
proposals,
so
everyone
doesn't
feel
like
left
out
or
that
they
did
work.
That
was
not
acknowledged
or
any
other
kind
of
subjective
point
of
view
that
could
affect
the
environment.
I
I
D
D
I
really
don't
want
people
to
feel
bad
about
asking
for
money,
though
I
think
it's
important
that
we
make
sure
that
we
as
a
dow,
we
have
a
strong
foundation
of
the
core
people
who
are
doing
what
they're
doing
and
that
they're
not
going
to
be
burned
out
or
feel
under
rewarded
for
their
work,
and
so
I
I
feel
like
we
can
up
the
requests
a
little
bit.
You
know,
especially
since,
like
I
mean
the
common
swarm
in
params,
we're
not
gonna
request
anything.
We
might
request
projects
as
needed
when
they
happen.
D
I
eventually
will
want
to
request
funding
to
rebuild
the
hatch
app,
for
instance,
so
that
it's
cooler
like
the
current
one
that
we
have
but
that's
about
it,
and
then
you
know
maybe
we'll
the
common
swarm
will
pass
will
be
gone
and
we'll
have
another
solution
for
development
work,
a
mix
of
raid
guild
and
one
hive
and
a
few
other
options
general
magic.
So
we
will
have
other
solutions
but,
like
you
know,.
D
It
would
be
scary
to
me
if
we
didn't
have
a
strong
foundation
of
core
people
being
funded,
to
continue
this
effort
and
continue
this
work.
So
please,
please
don't
be
shy
and
I
really
like
the
stewards
proposal.
It's
really
great
and
I
I
like
the
three
options
are
interesting,
so
we'll
have
to
see
where
we
go,
but
I
could
totally
see
the
stewards
group
or
being
like
a
backstop
for
some
proposed
for
some
working
groups
too.
D
Maybe
even
a
seed
funding,
a
working
group
or
or
this
kind
of
filling
in
that
role,
and
so
having
some
funds
to
play
with
in
the
stewards
group
is
really
critical
to
me
in
my
opinion,
so
I
would
go
for
the
at
least
the
middle
request
yeah,
and
I
I
I
really
I
just
like
how
we're
flowing
so,
I
think
we're
way
ahead
of
the
game
and
any
dow
that
I've
ever
seen.
So
I
can
I'd
say,
congratulations,
and
this
is
super
cool,
and
I
also
would
not.
I
don't.