►
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Intentions and distractions
1:28 - Transparency document for Legal (meeting attendance terms)
5:04 - Checking the call recorders for the week
7:33 - Transparency audit criteria
10:47 - Manifesto
22:13 - Roadmap
27:15 - Financial statement
35:10 - Members
48:50 - Decision making
🙏 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
My
intentions
are
the
same
as
yours,
so
I
would
love
to
know
the
I
I
would
love
to
discuss
the
criteria
or
the
transparency,
audit
and
yeah.
This
is
the
most
important
thing
for
us.
I
think
to
talk
about
and
then
yeah.
Then
we
so,
and
we
can
also
check
out
the
issues
that
we
still
have
in
zen
hub
and
yeah
everything
in
our
agenda.
These
are
all
my
intentions
and
I
don't
have
distractions
at
the
moment,
so
I'm
passing
it
to
libya.
C
A
Awesome
so
I
think
we
can.
We
could
start
with
the
transparency
document
that
we
have
to
coordinate
with
with
santi
and
well.
I
was
thinking
there.
The
first
thing
I
was
thinking
is
like:
how
are
we
going
to
handle
this
point
like?
Do
we
want
to
do
it
aging?
Do
we
want
to
do
a
verses?
Do
we
want
to
maybe
do
it
like?
We
did
with
the
audit
criteria
like
we
draft,
and
then
we
coordinate.
B
A
A
A
A
B
So
if
you
want
to
create
one
for
yourself
or
for
myself,
you
know,
I
think
it's
not
really
a
big
deal
if
you
create
one,
but
I
think
that
the
issue
that
santi
created
is
for
himself,
you
know
and
then
yeah.
We
can
also
update
there.
I
don't
see
any
problem
if
we
also
create
a
an
issue
for
ourselves,
so
we
have
it
on
our
list
of
tasks
to
do.
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
A
Okay,
so
now
we
go
to
the
last
point
of
the
agenda,
which
is
the
the
big
one,
the
spicy
all
the
criteria.
I
we
I
mean
right
now
is
two
documents
in
one
like
I've
created
a
document,
and
I
did
another
myself.
So
maybe
there
is
stuff
that
is
twice
but
then
now
we
just
have
to
to
make
it
clear
and
yeah.
So
we
could
read
it
together
and
like
we
will
go
through
parts
for
example.
A
So
there's
transparency,
audit
criteria
to
make
the
audit
possible.
The
working
group
should
prepare
the
next
documentation
and
it
will
be
gathered
and
saved
on
their
working
forum
section
with
an
audit
date.
It
will
be
review
every
three
months,
but
each
working
group
can
ask
an
audit
if
they
want
to
improve
their
transparency
before
conducting
an
audit.
Prepare
a
brief,
okay
yeah,
that's
like
the
same,
how
it
will
be
performed
okay,
so
we
should
color
those
paragraph
on
one.
A
B
D
B
A
Can
so
so
the
the
first
paragraph
is
what
I
when
I
write
this
I
was
thinking
like,
for
example,
there
is
a
an
audit,
then
the
working
group
should
get
prepared
those
documents,
so
they
know
what
are
we
going
to
be
reviewing
like
not
like?
We
go
to
the
goal
and
then
we
start
to
search.
I
think
it's
better.
If,
if
the
working
group
already
know
what
they
should
have
yeah
and
then
we
review
it
together,.
B
Yes,
that's
right,
that's
why
I
think
it
will
be
covered
here
in
the
point
when
I,
where
I
said
that
we
should
prepare
a
brief
on
what
the
audit
is
about
and
yeah.
So
of
course
we
have
to
prepare
this
summary
of
of
actions
that
we
will
be
conducting
and
what
they
have,
what
they
will
have
to
do,
so
they
can
get
a
higher
rating
so
yeah,
maybe
you
can
just
move
the
first
one,
the
second
paragraph
to
the
first
and
then
or
just
we
can.
A
Do
we
have
the
manifesto
complete?
Are
we
following
what
the
manifesto
says
should
it
be
updated?
When
I
say,
should
it
be
updated?
I'm
thinking
like
sometimes
like
the
working
group
is
evolving
and
I
don't
know.
Let's
say
they
do
more
stuff
than
be,
for
example,
now
when
we
write
it
our
manifesto,
the
audit
was
nothing
there,
so
I
think
it.
For
example,
in
our
case
it
should
be
updated.
B
Maybe
like
libya
might
get
I'm
confused
with
this
document.
Also,
what
we
did
here
leave
is
like
we,
we
drafted
separate
criteria
for
yeah.
We
did,
we
did
it
separately
and
then
we
wanted
to
compare
them
and
combine
them
in
this
call.
So
you
might
see
that
there
are
items
that
are
repeating,
because
the
first
part
are
the
first
part
is
zap's
idea
and
then
the
second
part
is
my
idea.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
now,
just
to
clarify.
What's
going.
C
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
A
B
C
The
manifesto
has
an
owner
so
like
the
lead
of
the
working
group,
should
be
the
one
making
changes
in
the
in
the
manifesto
to
make
it
easier.
So
so
I
think
just
a
notification
of
like
oh,
I
updated
the
manifesto
and
then
having
yeah
having
it
like,
highlighted
or
or
having
a
comment
in
the
doc.
I'm
saying
what
changed
like
something
small
just
so
people
can
go
and
see.
A
B
B
Yeah
in
this
for
the
bullet
communication
channels,
I
don't
know
which
channels
are
the
best
to
communicate
the
changes,
but
my
idea
for
this
audit
is
yeah.
The
working
group
will
just
let
us
know
you
know,
which
channels
are
they
using
to
communicate
the
changes
or
should
we
is?
Is
it
should
we
give
recommendations
where
they
should
be
communicated,
or
should
we
let
them
choose
the
channels
that
they
want.
C
C
A
But
what
I'm
thinking
I
mean,
for
example,
we
are
doing
the
audit
okay
and
then
how
do
we
know
if
the
working
group
communicated
that,
for
example,
if
there
is
in
a
caller,
should
we
go
to
the
call
and
record
that
and
based
on
somewhere?
So
it's
like
I'm
thinking
on
an
audit
like
all
the
documentation
that
is
here
is
shown
on
the
same
document
like,
for
example,
there
is
this
community
these
communicate.
B
A
I
think
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
good
solution,
but
at
the
same
time
I'm
thinking
of
the
working
groups.
They
will
be
already
having
a
lot
of
work
and
if
we
tell
them
we
need
that.
I
don't
know
how
would
you
feel
livi
if
I
asked
for
you
for
that
like
if
I
asked,
maybe
you
did
that
and
I
needed
that.
But
in
your
point
of
view,
like
you
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do,
how
would
you
feel.
C
C
A
A
No
yeah,
it's
clear,
I
think
it's
good,
so
I
I
the
same.
Maybe
it's
not
at
the
time,
but
I
was
thinking
like
the
the
audit.
It
would
be
nice,
for
example.
Let's
say
there
is
three
audits
during
the
year,
so,
for
example,
in
the
in
that
forum
post
that
you
only
be
created
for
each
working
group,
we
could
add
a
forum.
B
A
A
A
Awesome,
okay:
is
there
a
manifesto
available
in
the
forum?
Okay,
that's
right
and
road
map.
Do
we
have
a
road
map?
Are
we
where
we
should
be?
Is
there
a
road
map
realistic?
I
was
telling
that
to
ivy.
A
moment
ago
I
was
just
saying:
looking
was
looking
at
the
document
and
told
me
who
should
transparency.
Know
is
the
roadmap,
for
example.
Let's
say
tech
is
realistic
when
we
don't
know
about
tech,
and
I
think
that's
what
I
was
thinking
on
the
if
the
roadmap
is
realistic.
I
was
thinking
more
than
like.
A
Let's
say
the
working
group
is
not
advancing
or
taking
the
job
very
easily
and
maybe
something
like
that
or
or
differently.
Maybe
the
working
group
is
asking
for
funds
and
then
it's
saying
let's
say
we
want
to
do
this
this
this
and
this
and
a
lot
of
stuff,
but
maybe
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
that.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
to
highlight
in
here,
but
I
think
I
think
that
is
out
of
our
scope.
I
don't
know
what
do
you
think.
B
I
I
personally
think
that
it's
out
of
our
scope,
because
we're
only
auditing
them
for
transparency-
and
I
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
measure
if
it
if
their
roadmap
is
realistic,
because
of
course
they
know
this
areas
better
than
us.
You
know
what
I
mean
if
we're
auditing
communications
team,
how
will
we?
How
are
we
gonna
know
if
the
roadmap
is
realistic,
if
we're
not
experts
in
communications,
but
just
what
I
think,
maybe
libya
has
a
different
perspective.
C
A
I
really
like
the
idea
of
like
mutual
monitoring
but
like,
like
you
say,
maybe
it's
a
task
for
softcup
and
because
yeah,
I
think
you
have
like
better
understanding
or
on
on
top
of
stuff
like
that
and
yeah.
We
can
just
leave
it
here
and
and
before
the
before,
before
we
post
it
for
the
ball,
we
as
a
community,
we
decide.
If
we
want
to
leave
it
here
or
not.
B
A
A
A
C
B
B
C
C
But
then
another
thing
I
thought
is
that
maybe,
after
the
hatch,
the
working
groups
will
submit
proposals
to
the
commons
and
ask
for
like
x
amount
for
that
week
of
work
or
x
amount
for
that
month
of
work,
and
then
that
will
probably
go
to
one
account
and
be
distributed
to
the
other
members
of
the
working
group.
Maybe
this
is
something
that
we
should
look
into,
but
it's
so
undefined.
A
B
So
this
is
great
just
declaring
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
the
system
yet
so
they
may
be
working.
If
the
working
groups
request
for
funds,
then
I
think
there's
this
should
be
part
of
the
criteria
but
yeah.
Maybe
we
can
have
another
session
or
consultation
with
griff
and
sam
are
olivia.
Are
they
the
best
person
to
discuss
this
with.
C
Then
we
don't,
we
still
don't
have
a
system
for
how
new
new
soft
contributions
will
be
rewarded,
like
not
the
proposals
that
are
asking
for
funds
in
the
in
the
doubt,
like
the
work
that
we're
doing,
you
know
that
it's
being
rewarded
by
impact
hours.
How
is
that
gonna?
Look
after
hatch,
so
we've
been
discussing
this
and
softgov,
and-
and
there
is
the
source
crowd
so
how
to
integrate
source
cred.
That
will
also
reward
participation.
C
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
so
what
we
could
do
here,
because
we
are
doing
we
are
going
to
do
two
trial
outage
before
the
hatch.
So
before
the
hut.
The
thing
we
have
for
five
is
the
impact
hours.
So
when
we
do
that
trial
audit,
maybe
we
choose
and
financial
statement
just
to
the
impact
on
how
the
contributors
will
be
rewarded
and
we
could
delete
those
two,
how
you
think
about
that.
B
I
actually
don't
really
know
what
what
questions
to
ask
for
this
part
in
the
audit
in
the
in
terms
of
transparency,
but
my
idea
here
is
like
I,
the
first
thing
in
my
mind.
The
first
thing
that
comes
to
my
mind
is
like
I
think
it's
important,
that
people
know
who
are
doing
what
you
know
so
it
so
they
know
who
will
be
like
for
exam.
Who,
who
can
they
ask
when
they
have
questions
about
things?
D
B
A
B
A
Maybe
it's
out
of
our
scope,
but
what
I
was
thinking,
for
example:
let's
say
you
write
this
forum
post
and
then
I
just
post
it
and
I
get
the
knowledge
and
you
don't
something
like
that.
You
know,
then
you,
you
won't
be
acknowledged
for
your
work
and
I
think
that's
something
it's
interesting
to
be
transparent
but
yeah.
I
don't
know
how
to
handle
it.
Maybe
maybe
it's
more
like
gravity
job,
maybe
yeah.
C
C
We
did
praise
quantification
that
so
many
people
that
are
doing
a
lot
of
work
might
not
be
receiving
praise
like,
for
example,
we
were
all
a
group
of
like
non-tag
people,
quantifying
praise
and
then
are
we
quantifying
the
work
of
the
devs
right
like
how
you
know
so
many
of
these
questions
started
to
come
up,
so
I
think
I
think
it
is
yeah
yeah
it
could.
I
think
the
praise
kind
of
covers
that
right,
if
like.
C
Then
I
feel
like
it's
an
incentive
for
people
to
start
like
thinking
more
out
of
the
box
and
seeing
like
who
did
what
how
people
were
contributing
being
attentive.
For
that.
I
don't
know
if
it's
something
to
so
easy
to
measure,
but
more
like
putting
in
the
culture.
You
know
for
everyone
to
be
like
aware
of
that.
A
I
was
saying
it
even
the
other
day
we
were
doing
price
point
with
jake
and
grief
and
some
was
like
please
give
away
my
impact
hours
and
give
it
to
the
team
because
they
don't
have
enough
like
he
feels,
for
example,
let's
say
paolo
baby:
they
should
they
should
have
more
impact
hours
than
they
actually
have,
and
somehow
it's
not
being
I
don't
know,
maybe
I
don't
know
what
they
do.
They
didn't
do,
but
that's
a
feeling
that
same
half
like.
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
A
B
B
B
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
really
good
point,
like
yeah,
that
is
related
to
onboarding
and
also
also
transparent,
to
it's
related
to
everything
actually
like.
Knowing
who
you
can
you
can
talk
to?
Do
you
think
it's
not
so
clear
like
who
are
the
working
group
leads
and
and
what
topics
are
they
responsible
for.
A
C
B
A
C
The
only
thing
I
think
it
would
be
challenging
to
constantly
update
that,
because
I
feel
like
some
pro.
Some
things
are
really
quick,
so
maybe
what
could
be
in
the
transparency
thing
is
to
have
like
pointing
where
people
can
find
this
information
and
then
maybe
in
the
in
the
agenda
calls
there
could
be
something
related
to
this
yeah.
This
is
a
good
point.
We
should
think
more
about
it.
A
B
This
is
my
idea
here
is,
I
think
it's
because
there
are
some,
since
things
are
going
so
fast
right.
So
sometimes
I
maybe
some
working
groups
make
major
decisions.
I
don't
I'm
not
saying
that
that
it's
happening,
but
it
can
happen.
You
know
when
we
forget
to
communicate
those
major
decisions
that
we
make
but
yeah
just
to
make
sure
that
decisions
that
we're
making
are
always
being
communicated.
C
A
A
B
So,
who
is
the
question?
Who
should
be
audit
when
it
comes
to
decision
making?
Should
we
audit
like
yeah
it's?
I
have
the
same
question
as
your
zip.
Should
it
be
only
for
each
working
group
or
should
be
for
each
working
group,
or
is
there
only
some
kind
of?
Are
there
specific
people
that
we
should
be
only
auditing
when
it
comes
to
decision
making.
C
C
Yeah,
I
think
we
could.
We
could
see
like
how
much
that
proposal
followed
the
process
and
the
process
is
there
to
make
as
transparent
as
possible.
So
so
did
they
use
advice
process.
So
that's
not
mandatory,
so
it
shouldn't
be
like
bad.
If
somebody
doesn't
use
it,
but
it's
like
recommended,
it
could
be
like
snaps,
maybe
for
for
the
audit
and
then
was
the
proposal
submitted
like
from
monday
to
friday.
A
I'm
feeling
like
I'm
feeling
like
this
is
like
not
related
to
the
working
group,
so
maybe
that
decision
making
is
something
we
can
do
transplant,
but
in
in
another
process,
something
like
that,
because
they're
auditing
and
working
groups-
let's
say
maybe
legal-
did
any
decision
making
on
the
forum
and
when
they
reach
those
points
who
we
say
like
mark
them
as
a
good
or
not.
Listen.
C
Oh,
I
see
what
you
mean:
yeah
I'll
have
to
go
through
the
forum,
but
then
only
like
cultural
agreements
and
decisions
are
finalized
in
the
forum
and
then
financial
decisions
and
like
smart
contract
decisions
are
finalized
and
in
the
comments,
but
they
would
still
be
posted
in
the
forum
and
then
the
link
would
be
pasted
in
the
in
the
comments,
but
I
what
you're
unders
zap
so
so
maybe
we
don't
need
all
of
that.
We
could
like
all
of
this
three
last
questions,
you're
right.
Maybe
it's
no,
the
the
no
the
other
ones.
C
B
A
A
B
I,
like
the
color,
the
color
coding
system
here,
but
regarding
the
points
I
think
we
can
decide
on
that
once
we
have
finalized
all
the
questions
and
see
the
total.
You
know
we
have
to
know
how
many
questions
the
total
question
to
the
total
number
of
questions
we
have
and
then
we
can
decide
which
are
the
path.
What
is
the
passing
score?
What
points
do
we.