Governance Working Group Meeting Transcript

Anna T: Actually at a friend's place. We're having dinner, but, so I can take the call here and then have dinner. I'd imagined... Yeah. I'd imagined, eight would be, I think one hour would be,...

Celine V: I think looking at the topics, it might be, slightly longer, but, for sure not much longer than that. But we can, we can check in a minute.

Kate B: Hey, Daniel.

Daniel T: How's it going?

Anna T: You're muted, Daniel.

Daniel T: Oh. Hi, Kate. Hi, Celine. How's it going?

Kate B: Hi there.

Celine V: Hello. Very well. How about you guys?

Daniel T: Good.

Celine V: Very nice. Very good. let's see. So we still have a couple of people joining, I think, for sure. Or, yeah, let's see. Ben and then, Chris should be joining as well. do you know Peter personally by any chance? Because I don't-

Daniel T: Yes.

Celine V: -and he didn't get back to me, so maybe if you guys want to reach out-

Daniel T: Sure.

Celine V: -to him at some point.

Daniel T: Anna, can you send him the link? Anna, can you send him the link?

Anna T: Sorry?

Daniel T: Anna, can you send him the link?

Anna T: Yeah, I can.

Celine V: And I mean, yeah, of course, he can also join just for the next one. and, yeah, up to, up to him, of course. Then let's give the others another minute, and then we can, get started.

Kate B: Where are you all calling from tonight?

Celine V: I'm, from warm, warm Zurich, Switzerland. We're not used to the heat, so we're suffering even if it's not that bad for us. How about you?

Kate B: I'm in, Galway in Ireland. Uh-

Celine V: Oh.

Kate B: Beautifully, like a fellow Burner, we were like, "We need somewhere to stay." And this lovely man from the Love Box was like, "Come to me." It's so nice.

Celine V: Oh, so cool.

Kate B: Yeah.

Celine V: Very nice. And you're traveling around there, right? If I remember correctly from last week.

Kate B: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. We're on a roadie.

Celine V: That's great. Cool.

Kate B: It's amazing. The music is like, "What is this?" So nice.

Celine V: Very good. Then I think-

Kate B: Where are you calling from, Anna?

Anna T: From Bar- from Barcelona, from a friend's place. We're, having dinner and, so I, called from here, so I could go, afterwards straight to dinner.

Celine V: Cool.

Daniel T: And I apologize for any echo, but, like, Anna's just over there. So-

Anna T: Oh.

Daniel T: -I stay muted as much as I can.

Celine V: Very nice. Very nice.

Anna T: Did you get a cat, Daniel?

Daniel T: I did not get a cat. And you know very well that's not my cat.

Anna T: I got,... Ah.

Celine V: Oh my God, you got a cat. Is this Biscotti?

Anna T: Yeah. There's three kittens. So, I wouldn't say Biscotti has adopted me here. I think she's just likes that chair.

Kate B: Great. Kittens for everyone.

Celine V: Nice. I'll just, drop a message in the chat and see. Oh, five minutes, huh? Ben gonna be a little bit late but coming and Chris as well.

Anna T: Yeah. I sent a message to Peter. Oh, it's... He has been on WhatsApp, I can see, so he joins or not. Is it,... Was it your first time in, elsewhere, Celine?

Celine V: No, it was actually the second. So, yeah, I was actually very, very glad that it happened again. I shared briefly with, Kate and Daniel. A lit- from a little bit further distance, yeah, it didn't, it didn't seem like it. So I was very, committed to contribute more this year, just to also make sure that, yeah, it can happen again. So I really appreciated the work and, I have heard it was a lot. How about you? How many times have you been?

Anna T: This was my fourth time.

Celine V: Cool. Very nice. And for four years in a row for you?

Anna T: Yes.

Celine V: Nice. Very good. And maybe what-- to be honest, what we can... And here we have Peter. so just very briefly, I thought,... Hey, Peter. Welcome. Still getting, getting installed. There we have Chris. Hey, Chris. Perfect. So I think we can get started. so maybe first of all, I have looked at the topics and I think in general, we would probably need up to one and a half hours. but I think the goal is rather than discussing everything and having a solution for everything is also get into the operational mode and maybe distributing tasks, right? So we can form mini groups- And make sure that things, that we can actually get started. So maybe briefly, Anna, you have shared already around eight or after more or less an hour you should leave, so we can also try to squeeze it in. But then we just need to make sure that, yeah, we get more into the distributing mode and don't discuss everything to the detail. And maybe next time we come more with, like, good proposal that we can even pre-read. Does that make sense? Okay, perfect. Then let's do it that way. Then okay. I can briefly give Julian an update after, as he can only, join at eight, so I'm happy to summarize it, for him. And then a short intro. I mean, I... Do most of you guys know each other already? Because I'm also happy to maybe have some bilateral intros, but I'm not really sure how well you guys are connected, already. We can do a short intro. We already... Anna, Chris, and Peter did it last time, so please help me briefly understand how well you know each other.

Daniel T: I-

Chris O: Well, I wasn't here last time, so I think Ben maybe was the other one.

Daniel T: Yeah. I think we do-

Celine V: Okay. But-

Daniel T: I think we do all know each other. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: We've all spoken before, but not with you, so we can intro ourselves to you if you want. I mean, those of us who haven't introduced ourselves to you already.

Celine V: Yeah. I mean, as we're a little bit short of time, to be honest, and I really like catching, catching up also bilaterally. If you don't mind, I would kind of like introduce myself a bit bilaterally to not lose too much time. What do you think? Is that al-alright for you, Anna, Chris, and Peter? Cool. Well, ve-very happy to get started then, with the agenda. Thanks a lot for adding your topics. So what I have, tried to do is put it into an order and have an estimated time planned, but, we will shorten or try to shorten it up a little bit. last time, so Anna you have,-- Ben is also here. Okay. so Anna, you have raised two questions that I think are of great importance. We have already discussed it a little bit, and I'm not sure if you had the chance to read what Daniel has, summarized. so I forwarded the message, so you can read it. But Daniel, if you could say a few words, because I do think it's very important that we all understand, where this work group is coming from.

Daniel T: So what, in terms of the selection and so on?

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: Is that what you mean?

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: So like we had some pretty, busy discussions about this on the group last week. and I think part of the confusion was a sense of, was this a group that was receiving a mandate from the board to go and, define the governance and so on. And, it felt, uncomfortable to me to go and, have the board assign this responsibility out to another group. and we were also, also under some time pressure, at that point 'cause we had the community call coming and so on. And as a sort of cleaner move for now, which can obviously change, it felt like it was simpler to just say, "Okay, no, this is just a working group. Anyone can create a working group." The govern-- there's already governance in the statutes that says that anyone can propose governance, can call for a general, assembly. There are criteria defined for how that happens. So there is already some kind of baseline governance. And, if we were to give more authority to this group, then we would need to define some kind of criteria and so on. But otherwise, any... Like this group can meet just like, you know, there could be another meeting going on right now that is calling itself a governance working group, and that would not be in conflict with this. It would just be a stream of other people who are working on this as well. so that was kind of my conclusion at that point. does that make sense?

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: Is that what you also got from my message, hopefully? And does that still make sense also? 'Cause maybe it doesn't make sense anymore.

Celine V: And we do have some, some new members, right? So to me it still makes sense, and thanks a lot for summarizing it. I think it's worth it to read through the long message that Daniel has written also referring to the statutes and stuff. But Anna, as you raised the point, do you feel like you still have any open topics here?

Anna T: I, like my understanding of what Daniel just said is that there is no legitimacy for this group. Like that... There isn't a mandate. There is... There's no legitimacy. Anyone can form a group to explore governance. And association members can propose things to the association and can, propose ideas, I guess. So there's,-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Anna T: Yeah. But then there are three-- I think I still feel a bit confused about it, about then kind of like what this is and, like how we would define ourselves, what the objectives of the group are. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm. I think it's a very fair question, and maybe we can actually take a action out of this. So last time we talked a little bit, guided by, by Kate about principles, and I tried, and it's really a draft from the notes, from last time. we discussed a couple of principles, and what we should probably do is that one or two people sit together and phrase them out, and then we actually, as a working group, agree to this. And for instance, I think this is a very important one, and we discussed it, I would say quite intensively. Other, there... That the working group will prepare well-reasoned proposal, but then still the GA decides. So- Mentioned before also other working groups can prepare proposals and, that's all right. Maybe on other topics, right? So yeah, the action would be to actually phrase out these principles and really agree on what or which principles this working group would follow. And I would say, I mean, in the governance, discord channel, we should at least know if other, working groups arri-arise, right? So we can coordinate with them. I guess that would be, that would be important. And we can even put it there like that. but I mean, the better case is that they probably join this group. So d-does it make sense that we take an action out of this and somebody helps to phrase out these principles and make a good proposal?

Kate B: I think it sounds like a great idea to form out these proposals, but I also am not a hundred percent sure on if like a reading of the statutes does let this process stand as was defined by Daniel. Because... And maybe I'm wrong, and I need to relook at this and maybe reread it, because it seems like it still is broad discretion to call in, working groups or... And I think working group is our term, but there's an article that says it can establish a group and appoint its members with notified process, basically. So maybe what we could do and also disband it. I think that is still the mandate of the board in my reading. But if that is correct, we could, as we introduce the internal regulations, which would be part of like the f- the governance framework, change that. And so that governance framework that we would run at the general assembly that determines like our bylaws and this, and how we govern the association could introduce whatever we want on working groups. How it's appointed, whether it's the board dissolving that power that the board has if we don't want it to have that or, and introducing another one. So I think maybe looking into this, like really with a... I haven't had time. w-- un-unless, Daniel, you're really confident it is as you've kind of proposed, I would, I would maybe just offer to lead like a double check on that and see if we're... Yeah, that's fine. Or if there's oth-other thoughts, happy to hear them.

Celine V: Yeah. Chris, please.

Chris O: So I think, I think maybe the confusion would be the kind of use of the word, working group or the two words working group. I... Like right now we're just participants. we have no formal anything. So if we were to, establish like an official working group that has the mandate and all of that would have to happen through the board. But I think right now we're just a bunch of people chatting-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Chris O: -in practice. which is, which is fine by me. Like, we can, we can do that and then propose things just as anyone else can. and but maybe, I mean, there is maybe a legitimacy argument to make that, if we, go with a bunch of suggestions for how to do things to a general assembly that carries some weight if it's like all the governance working groups. So maybe there is kind of-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Chris O: -maybe there is an argument to get the board to actually establish this as an actual thing. But, I think formally speaking, w-we're, you know, we're just members like anyone else and, we're just having a chat and maybe making some proposals.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Chris O: I don't believe we have mandated any working groups formally, formally speaking.

Celine V: I think, I think that's a very good, point, Chris, and that was also a bit, what we said last time. I think everybody committed. So if you have to go through a formal process, we will obviously also, you know, step back from, the group if we're not selected. but we're also fine if it's okay and we're just a group of people, getting to together and chatting about the governance, right? so what I would propose, I think Kate and Daniel, maybe that would be a topic for you. and I think there's two aspects to it. I think we should get kind of like the approval from the board that this is okay like that. And maybe Kate, if you could check the statutes and see if we're actually al-aligned there, and if... And guide kind of like the whole group how we should organize ourselves. Does that make sense?

Daniel T: I mean, I can't imagine that the statutes say anything that forbids people from meeting in a group and talking about things. So that bit is definitely allowed.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: And the statutes do explicitly allow any member to propose, like to... With the right support of the membership to, call for a general assembly. And then there's a requirement for the board to schedule that within thirty days if the criteria are met.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: And there's a way for members to add, agenda points to the, to that, general assembly. Ben, you just said no. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: I'm not sure what you mean by no, Ben. maybe you're answering somebody else.

Celine V: Or maybe-

Ben D: I was just responding to Kate that the board has not actually instituted any other working groups to-to date.

Daniel T: So we've not used that formal working group mechanism. it's... It would be unclear like how... Like we could talk about how to use that if that made sense. but then we probably need to talk about a selection process and so on to give the group... Especially with something like governance, which impacts everybody and is really important to people in this community, which has had some difficult experience of governance-

Celine V: Yes.

Daniel T: -in the past. it's, important that this is done like In what is legitimate. Otherwise, we'll lose a lot of people if they feel like the process-

Celine V: Yeah

Daniel T: ... is being defined in a way that they don't have input into-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... or stability into.

Celine V: Ben?

Ben D: I'm sympathetic to the sensitivity to make sure that this process is as, correct, transparent, accessible, as possible. at the same time, I have the feeling that this is like-- this part of the discussion is just going in circles actually. and it seems to me anyway that this-- that the delegation of power, the kind of the authorization of power structure is quite-- is relatively clear and simple, in the sense that the board is exercising executive power on behalf of the general assembly who elected them, and that the board is, going to use that executive power to appoint, a particular group who will then, as part of their mandate, formally, defined, in a, in a, in a board meeting, in a board vote to create a follow working group, will then, construct the prop-- the more elaborated proper, proper framework by which these things happen in the future. But that first stage of it seems to me quite clear and simple. Like, we just need to have a baseline proposal for, who's gonna be in the group. The board is gonna s-- is just going to vote on it to say, "This is what the board wants." And then from that point on, the group is going to be, empowered by, internal regulation to, like, take charge of these subjects that we're trying to all define now. and they'll be able to more efficiently, more productively, you know, construct all, all of these mechanisms themselves. So, I guess just to summarize that, like what I'm trying to say is like, mm, I feel like we should just do it simple and fast, and that group then will be able to do it slowly, carefully, and most effectively over the longer term.

Celine V: Yep. Yeah. Thanks a lot for sharing that, Ben. And I think that's a good one, right? To create some transparency around, okay, what is the purpose of this, group, and maybe also then present it to the board. so should we, maybe Kate and Daniel, I don't know who wants to be in the lead, but I would assume one of you and you guys come up with a proposal, how we should steer that forward. Does that make sense? Because I think we will be way quicker to decide if we have a proposal, and then we can still si-- say, "Oh, these five percent we don't agree with, let's change it." But I think if not, I agree with Ben, we will go a little bit in circles. so it would be very helpful if you could work out something.

Kate B: I totally support not going in circles. is this a mandate, though? Or it just keeps circling.

Celine V: I think within, within like the working group, we can distribute tasks, right? And we can, as Daniel pointed out, we can organize ourselves and, try to make proposal. This is all good. And I think, Daniel, if you could just have in your next board meeting a short chat if we're aligned regarding, this working group. And Kate, if you'd, check the statutes, and we bring these worlds together, I think we should be fine. Then have-- Then we have read the statutes after appro-approval from the board, and then we should be good.

Daniel T: So what I'm not clear about there is like, what extra authority does this group need in order to do its work? It feels like it has already the authority that it needs, because it can go and do things. There's no, no, no regulation forbidding anybody from working on governance or from making governance proposals. So...

Celine V: Mm. Yeah, I think we just had the proposal by Kate, to reread the statutes, right? To just to make sure that it's safe. And Ben said, "Oh, maybe we can propose, or describe the group to the board." So I think all of this, if you could work out the proposal, how we do it.

Daniel T: Yeah. It's just at this point, I'm not very clear on what exactly we're proposing that's different from, "Hey, we're a group of people working on something."

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: But there's two hands raised.

Celine V: Maybe that's enough. Yeah. Yeah. Ben?

Ben D: So I would feel like the... From, from the way I just articulated things, the kind of next step deliverable would be a motion put forward at a board meeting to approve the formal establishment of the working-- the governance working group with the following purposes, right? And those purposes would be to do with like, a mechanism for establishing how people get into the group and then the kind of broad goals of the group. yeah. So that seems to be the next step. Just to respond to Daniel's question, I don't know what more we need to do because, we're just a bunch of people that can just do stuff is fine also. But, then I think it's nice to have something written down and on paper and evidence that everybody formally supported it. And I think that the motion is the place to start. So...

Celine V: Peter?

Peter K: The sound is breaking up there in

Celine V: All good. It's a little bit hard to hear you, Peter.

Peter K: Yes. I'm sorry. I'm on virtual conference and I lose it then, so I'll try to Raise the sound. so just to give context for those who don't know me, I am a director of the former structures. I'm a director of going, SN, the old structure that we don't, use anymore. I've been around as part of Nowhere in many different ways for many, many years. So, I wanted to get involved because, a lot of Nowhere has shaped the new structure compared to the old structure is, provided I've been a technical creator for many years. I've been to several years ago, and then we were stuck in situations where we were not able to make a new structure. Now that the new structure has happened, I'm extremely happy. I've been wanting to do this for very many years. just because for many reasons and also because we had to move very fast, right? between last Nowhere and this Nowhere. but, elsewhere this year, I had many conversations that told me that quite a few people, including quite a few Nowhere leads, are not aware of how the new structure works, and they come to me saying, "There is this and all that," and I have to interrupt them and tell them that there is no Nowhere. And also as a Nowhere lead, are you aware that you have a vote? And a lot of them are not aware. So that's why I thought, okay, I want to get involved because I want to be a little bit great, a little bit of ambassador because what I've always wanted, and that's why I'm very... I'm very happy just to be clear about the existing structure. I've been wanting this for years, so I'm over the moon. but I think there is not a lot of awareness in the community. And then also what I have seen from this community, honestly, is a lot of people, they're stuck, right? They don't wanna, like, they just want to party. They just wanna show up and do their thing. I think compared to maybe some other instances, there's a lower level of involvement, which is fair 'cause there's no ways, work being done, by a smaller group. But ju-just to say, I don't think you should have too much, worry about legitimacy. And, I assume you've decided as a group that together make answer,-

Celine V: Peter, I'm very sorry. Peter, I'm very sorry to interrupt you but it's very hard to follow because of the sound. I'm sorry I reached out to Discord, to you, and I tried to invite you to the call, and I think, somehow we couldn't, organize it. But maybe we can also have,... because it's really hard to follow, what you say. Should we make sure that you can make your points either in written or... Okay. I'm sorry for that. It's, I think we were all trying, but, it was a little bit hard. But feel free to drop them in the chat if, that makes sense, and I'm happy to read them out loud for you. then I think we had-- Yeah. Chris, if you could go next.

Chris O: Yeah. so I think, I think actually the-- I've just been thinking about it a little bit, and I think it's probably a good idea if we do that. Like, if the board does, make this-- like for-formalize this a little bit. And the reason for that is, nothing other-- 'Cause the only people, with the exception of getting, twenty percent of the members to say so, the only people who can actually put things on the agenda for the general assembly is the board. and I think when it comes to things like this, like how are we actually going to structure us in the future, I feel like, there, if we just go on the agenda and say, "Here are some, changes to the statutes," or, "This is how we're gonna do this vote," or whatever, it's just the board putting on the agenda some stuff that some random people came up with, which is not,-- Which doesn't feel that le-legitimate to me. So I feel like there is a little bit of an legitimacy argument there to kind of formalize the structure in terms of that. Just so, like, there is a, mandate from the board that basically says, "Can you come up with proposals on how do we do these things?" And then that working group comes back to the board with those proposals, and then the board gives that to the, to the general assembly. Like, that feels a bit more proper, than if we're just like, "Here's an agenda item. This is how we vote. This random group of people who are not a working group came up with it." So I do... I-- Yeah, I think that would, would be-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Chris O: Would be a good idea.

Celine V: Great. Thanks, Chris, for sharing your, opinion. So I would say for the first two points, do we then all agree that we need a proposal? I heard yes from, at least a majority of people. sorry, I just put your names in here. So, but openly asking who would like to, help with this? Who wants to be the owner? I think they actually one and two go together, right? Is it fine for you, Kate? Did you drive it as an owner?

Daniel T: Can't see your hand.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: Can't see your hand on the screen.

Celine V: Thank you. Daniel, would you mind supporting?

Daniel T: I'm just noticing that Anna's got her hand raised, but it's not visible on the screen.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: I can see that she's got her hand raised.

Celine V: Oh, sorry. Yeah.

Daniel T: Just trying to tell her to-

Celine V: Sorry for that-

Daniel T: Yeah.

Celine V: Anna.

Kate B: Yeah, sorry. I'd, I'd like to join in with that.

Celine V: Nice. Okay. So maybe Daniel and Anna, you could support-

Daniel T: I-

Celine V: The proposal.

Daniel T: Yeah.

Celine V: Or rather Anna.

Daniel T: Yeah, or maybe Anna and Kate work. Like, so I'm just concerned about-

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: Like a proposal being prepared by a board member, then brought to the board.

Celine V: Yeah, makes sense.

Daniel T: Um-

Kate B: I think it's a good point. Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: So-

Kate B: So can you add Bambi as well, please? He's not here, but we kind of in the early workings, he's... Yeah, he contributed as well.

Celine V: Nice. Okay, perfect. Then I would say let's, move forward, and maybe we can actually even include that there as well. So last time, and I think Anna Jo has-- have, or we briefly talked about it as well, at least in written. So we were talking about open versus closed, channels for this working group. So if the whole communication should go through Discord and the governance group, which will of course overflow a little bit, the channel probably. on the other hand, we have now the WhatsApp group, which I think is fine, for the moment, just to make sure that we get started right. should we vote on this within this working group as another interim solution, or should we include that in what you guys are gonna prepare, Kate and Anna?

Kate B: I think I'm confused about the question. Is it that... Like, is the proposal that all communications re-- must be through the public channel? Or ho-- Yeah.

Celine V: Exa-exactly. I mean, that's at least the open discussion we had from last time, so that would at least be the topic that is still open, right? Because we're getting approached by people, via Discord and stuff. But yeah, Daniel, sorry, you have your hand up.

Daniel T: Yeah. I mean, this is kind of like we're now, trying to decide on the governance of the governance working group, which is, you know, turtles all the, all the way down kind of situation. like, how do we decide that the thing should be open or closed? Is it a vote of, like, who, of which people vote on this? it feels-

Celine V: Yeah

Daniel T: ... like maybe this can be part of, like intuitively I feel like this could be part of a negotiation between the working group that wants to be formed and the board, so maybe it can form part of the proposal, and-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... there can be a kind of back and forth about that. I mean, you know what my opinion is. I mean, it's not a surprise.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: And I don't know what the opinion of the rest of the board will be. That would be up to them. But it can be-- it can form part of a proposal. This is how we propose to communicate.

Celine V: Mm.

Daniel T: This is the level of transparency we propose to have, and yeah, that c- that could form part of the proposal. And then the board-

Celine V: Okay

Daniel T: ... either pushes back and says, "Well, no, we want this and this." Like, you know, if you want... Yeah, like, you know. Or it says, "Yeah, that's-- this proposal is fine as it is." And that, like, that way that separates the, this... Like, that m- that seems like a viable path to decide that more than just the people on this call votes for some arbitrary reason. Um.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Make, makes sense to me. I really like, that we include this into the proposal and are transparent in the communication of the working group. Would it be fine for you if I just include that s- like this?

Kate B: I think-

Celine V: Yeah, Kate

Kate B: ... I think this is moot because, like, it-- there's too many turtles in this. Like, how do we... I messaged Bambi about, like, can I add this word? Like, that needs to be in a Discord channel. Like, I'm-- I don't think we can get any work done by demanding that, like-

Celine V: Mm

Kate B: ... or having a rule for a working group that all communication must be done in public. I think there needs to be a balance between, like, doing work and then, like, ensuring that... I mean, one of the principles that's already in draft, which is good I think, is like the community can... Like, anything that, like, affects the community at, like, the policy level will be decided in the general assembly or if we actually do change the internal regulations to h- enable other forms of governance. And, like, yeah, hopefully, I mean, also living the principle of transparency, like the commitment to publishing the minutes and the, not just the minutes, but like the, what's it called? Transcript of all meetings. Yeah. I think, like, trying to control, like, how commu- people communicate a-as they do work-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Kate B: ... is problematic.

Celine V: Maybe it could even be just part of the co-communication principles, right? So we're open about these principles, and within these principles we, work in the working group. So K-Kate, do we agree that it's as it is, kind of like you're the owner of it, that we would also transparently show that in the proposal to the board?

Kate B: Yeah, I think that's a really good idea to separate principles from-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Kate B: ... like regulation.

Celine V: Okay. Any other thoughts here? If not, we can go on. Perfect. then the next one, maybe Kate, if you could share briefly your thoughts, as you've added it to the agenda.

Kate B: Yes. So we learned last week that there's a GA being called. Is it for the third of September by the board? Um-

Daniel T: We shifted it to the eighteenth. uh-

Kate B: Oh, the eighteenth

Daniel T: ... we passed a motion yesterday to shift it to add an extra two weeks delay.

Celine V: Okay, great.

Kate B: Yeah, eighteenth.

Celine V: That's right. Yeah.

Kate B: Okay, cool. So maybe I was just trying to, like, table, like, a lot from the notes that I received from you, Daniel, but also other inputs, and I-- this is only the start of the work. We need to, like, get input from all different working groups, the community on, like, what actually needs to be motioned for the GA. obviously there's the dates decision, but it seems like the governance framework is really important too. And then there's the board's decisions to date, like an omnibus ratification, let's call it, of like everything that's been done till now. Like, I'm curious, like, if that could be done at this GA because... And my fear is, like, if we call GAs all the time, like it's a lot, it's a lot for people. It's a lot for the Associados to actually prepare, to make the time, to turn up. Can we like, batch proposals? But then I actually heard from Daniela that she was saying that at the AGM in Vidalia Proposed for the seventeenth and nineteenth, but that could be another one. Like, so the first question is, like, what can we fit into the GA? How-- What's the frequency or the cadence that we want to do GAs in, knowing that, well, in my opinion, that it takes a lot of effort? Is there one happening on the seventeenth to nineteenth? And, yeah, what do we wanna vote on them? And this-- my, like, list there is just like a cursory quick look. Maybe lots of people in the community have other ideas. Yeah, Camille, please.

Daniel T: So, I mean, first of all, there's a variety of opinions about this, including on the board, so it's not-- I'm not speaking for the board on this. my view as a Swiss person, like you, Celine, is I feel like voting is not scary. we can do a lot of votes every year, and it's okay, so long as there's a bit of preparation of the materials. People can handle, like, and especially this is not like, you know, a whole country. It's a few hundred people. I think the voting capacity is, higher for engaged people than, might be estimated there. I don't see that there's a problem with having ten, twenty, thirty items voted per year. I also s-strongly believe as a principle that, a body that does not have the opportunity to make decisions isn't actually in control. so it's not really, like I understand the principle of like, you know, representative democracy and so on, but like if there's not-- like the fewer control points there are, the fewer decision points there are, the less control there actually is in practice. And then the more people feel disempowered and like they don't have the ability to influence things. I very clearly believe that it would be beneficial to this community to move us towards, somewhere where we have more decision points more frequently, and it becomes just a normal course of being part of an association that of course there are decisions that happen and, you know, you get a package every, like, let's say four times a year or six times a year or something every couple of months. There's a, like, here's the decisions that are on the table, and then you go and review them, and then you vote, and then that's how you exercise control over the association. that's my perspective on this, but you did ask for, like what the-- it feels like the room was open for this right now. So I'll let-- I think Chris Alexandra is next.

Chris O: Yeah. I,... Well, first of all, just to talk about the ones that are, that are happening now, I feel like the one that is, the one that is coming up should be, focused. we have one very big decision to make, and I think we should try and keep it to that, especially because this is, in many ways also an experiment in how do we, how do we even do these things? how do we structure them? How do we, how do we vote? How do we do all of this? So I think it's probably healthy for us not to, bite more than we can chew on this, particular one. but then we, then we get to the second one which, you know, when there's,-- it hasn't been any formal call, but I assume we will, the Vidalia thing will, will also be, in essence a general assembly, which kind of just out of habit, I have kind of assumed that would be the big one every year because that's, that's been the connection point that we've had, as, when DNSL was there. but that's, that's not necessarily the case. Anyway, I think, the general assembly kind of has a right to decide a lot of these things as well, which is, one of the things that, I wanna make sure that we have, time for is that people can actually be able to discuss these things and figure out, like, what are the pros and cons of having more of these touch points, either, if it's, you know, one big one where we as many as possible meet in person every year, and there-- then there's a couple extra throughout the year that kind of serves, serve to make, make bigger decisions. Is it that? Is it having, you know, an intermediary, layer where there are more people involved? which, very kind of fresh ideas that I'm thinking about, but kind of something that is kind of around coordinators and maybe some other people to give a little bit more legitimacy to things or, decisions that are being made and, or is it that we do have a general assembly all the time? Like I've-- so I'm probably leaning more in the fewer direction, but, I-- yeah. Anyway, I think these are things that we shouldn't be making decisions about as kind of a little, little group sitting here. I think these are things that we can definitely give options, like that's, that's a way to structure a discussion, but I think we should be kind of a little bit careful in how we, present these things to the general assembly, that we're not like serving them, this is how the organization should be run, but rather like, "Okay, here are some options of how we can do things. Can we have a discussion about this?" And then come to some agreement.

Kate B: Yeah, I totally agree. Like the discussion seems really important before things end in a vote, which I think is like the last, the last frontier when the, like, nothing else works sometimes. I think that the fewer is better as well after working with a lot of volunteer-led organizations for a long time. Like, I think it's great to, like, fully trust that people will wanna participate and make their voices heard and then, you know, time and busy lives and family and, like, not this being volunteer only and the ca-- like, it just means that it's not as often as we hope that people can really participate and participate well, and often it's people with the privilege of having the time Being accustomed to reading things that are, are very often presented very rationally. So yeah, I'm super keen to discuss what this might look like and also to figure out what definitely belongs in a GA. What by law are we required to make the decisions in the GA only? What is high stakes in terms of duration, reversibility, risk, and should probably be added there? And then is there another voting mechanism that or decision-making mechanism that we can install by way of the governance frameworks? Like, oh, we can actually do a poll that is outside the GA that still carries weight. From my research, like, the answer is yes, that we can change our own internal statutes to make that possible for us so that we don't have to call a GA all the time. So super keen to look into that. And then also the democracy, which is, like, how we got to this point in some ways, right? Like by, by teams of people, like, feeling so empowered and trusted to make the decisions that affect them. So how do we figure out this beautiful, framework is kind of what I'm really interested in doing. Sorry for talking so long.

Celine V: Yeah. No, very, very interesting points. just to make sure that we also get through the points and people can then also, leave for dinner. I wanted to ask, so who is preparing the agenda for the GA? I mean, I agree that we need to focus, I guess, on the date selection and should use that as a trial, and maybe we can contribute there, and these are the next two agenda items, by helping with the preparation, testing a bit the mechanism, and so on. but with whom do we need to kind of like align, the agenda, or who is in the driver's seat there for the GA?

Daniel T: So, I mean, the boards, will probably be setting the agenda on this one,-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... fifteen days before the GA, so on September second, third, something like that. Um-

Celine V: Okay

Daniel T: ... I w-- Like, at the moment, I'm putting stuff together to, like, start, start building an information pack on this. I welcome assistance on this from this group or as part of this group or separately or adjacent or something. This can be a slightly separate working group focused on just this vote, but it probably has overlap, so there's kind of a sense in having some kind of communications can be-- like they can be coordinating-

Celine V: I can't hear you anymore, Daniel.

Daniel T: Oh.

Chris O: I think it's gone. I think Anna's-

Daniel T: Anna, can you hear me?

Chris O: ... gone as well. So wherever they are-

Daniel T: I can hear you guys. we lost... Pietro, has your connection dropped? Do you have like bad internet or something? Very, very unhelpful time for the connection to drop.

Anna T: I don't know. I mean, forty-five minutes is long enough for a meeting, isn't it?

Daniel T: Well-

Anna T: It will come back.

Kate B: I'm happy to do it with, like, at the Vidalia one with way more time because I think to actually get real input from the community, it could be better.

Daniel T: It's back in.

Kate B: But it's only-- the only thing is... Yeah, I think that's fine if other people agree with that. Like, the governance framework and it doesn't get proposed, tabled to the AGM at Vidalia.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Kate B: Unless there's issues with that. I mean, they've st-stated clearly that they wanna focus for the new dates for the first one.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Kate B: I don't know. Actually, it doesn't really make sense to me, but because it's like s- it is a call of attention, of so much attention to do a vote. So I-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Kate B: ... I don't actually-- But I don't have time to organize the, a draft proposal for the statutes before the October.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: So, yeah. So I-

Celine V: Okay. But then maybe... Yeah, you were interrupted. Welcome back, Daniel.

Daniel T: Yeah. So I was, I was, I was saying that I welcome assistance from anybody on this group, maybe as an adjacent working group or, maybe it's obviously connected to prepare this first governance proposal for the seventeenth. I think Anna is joining again, by the way. there you go.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: And she had her hand raised, I think.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: But so yeah, like, at the moment, that's like, you know... At the moment it's me, but I'm hoping it's gonna be more than me, after tonight and over the next few days. and I think I wanna hand over to Anna, who had her hand raised before her connection dropped in, Kanbuti.

Celine V: Okay. I think, Daniel is gone again, but Anna is back.

Daniel T: What?

Celine V: Oh, sorry, Chris, you were first.

Chris O: Yeah, I just wanted to say, Kate, if you have things that you think are valuable for the, virtual general assembly in, well, yeah, a month and a half, I think we should talk about that. but that does-- Like, the fact that I'm saying I sh- I think that meeting should be focused doesn't necessarily mean, it needs to be only the dates. I just think we shouldn't like... It's not the kitchen sink. Like the kitchen sink is the next, next time. That's when we can do everything, and we have people in a room, and we have, you know, it's a bit more of an event. But that doesn't mean necessarily that everything, you know, the-- we have this one, and it's just the dates, and that's it. I just think we need to be a little selective with what we do. That's, that's all.

Celine V: Anna?

Anna T: Anna. yeah, it's quite quick actually. It's, just that, the frequency of the general assemblies and the voting is really dependent on how many people are in the association. Because I think it's,... I have a lot of faith in people to be, to be very engaged and to be able to really read the information. But the quantity, like who-- if the organization in whatever way decides to expand the Associados to a very large number of people, then all of these questions change dependent on that, I think.

Celine V: Makes sense. So then out of this, discussion, I would take, Daniel, your... I mean, es-- of course, the whole board, right? is preparing the agenda, and we can provide input, for the agenda. So if we have something, something from up here or for the date selection, we will just kind of like try to submit it through you. Make sense?

Daniel T: Yeah.

Celine V: Good. Can I-- Perfect. then I would move forward, and I think we can take these, two items together. so I think one mechanism that we have discussed and that I also take a little bit from the Swiss so-- voting system is always this, where we always get this booklet, and I think we should prepare something similar, right? so a handout with all the information, and there is a- actually already some work that has been done. maybe some people of you have already seen it. and I think we should just make sure that it's a proper handout. People can read it easily and, take an informed decision. And I personally would love to contribute at least here. and I think it's something that is just work, and we need to work on it. I think, Daniel, you have done some work. So I would just openly ask, does it make sense that we get started on that, in a smaller round, and who would like to contribute?

Daniel T: Yeah. Yeah. So I-- It totally makes sense. Like, it's gonna be pretty overwhelming for me to try to do the whole thing myself. In particular, the bit that is gonna be time-consuming is, contacting other burns, to-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: To get the-- get their input on like, you know, what-- how does it impact them if we move dates to X, Y, Z.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: Which also is, by the way, an opportunity maybe to get more visibility for Elsewhere by asking them to poll their own members about, what, like, the, w-where they want the Elsewhere dates. We should help build visibility for the event. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: But, yes, it's contacting the other burns, and it's gathering more, robust data. Like right now, for example, the fire risk is a kind of, is from, ChatGPT and stuff. Maybe we can do something a bit more rigorous, like have more clear data of wh-why the rating is the way, the way it is. and then there's gonna be just the sort of like formatting all that into some kind of format that people can digest easily, like the Swiss booklet. So, like, you know, the reason why millions of people in Switzerland can vote every few months on a bunch of items is because there's this amazing little booklet which says exactly what you're voting on and has very clear, simple information on a single page that, like, summarizes what it is that you're voting on, and then more detailed information from people proposing the thing, more detailed information from people who are against it. And then, I mean, the position of the parties is maybe less relevant for Elsewhere. I don't think we have political parties yet. maybe we'll get there. But, maybe we can have the position of Barrios later or something. But, yeah. So it's, like presenting the information clearly so that people can make an informed decision without needing to spend three hours informing themselves or being part of the conversation as well, because being part of the conversation takes a lot of time. and that's what a vote enables people to do, to get the information and make a vote feel like they participate in making the decision and actually genuinely participate in making the decision without spending all the time doing the thing. yeah. I'm looking for the, to the Uber town people's front. yeah. So I w- I would really like help with the contacting the other burns and making the data more rigorous and helping prepare the booklet. I can do all those things, but I'll probably drown if I try to do all of them. So, yeah.

Celine V: Yeah. Super happy to support there. As mentioned, I think, Julian just joined. wanna share?

Julian (Bambi): Yeah. Hello. Just wanted to say that I'm, following now, and I will turn on my camera as soon as I'm home in five minutes.

Celine V: Nice. Perfect.

Julian (Bambi): But it is good for now.

Celine V: Yeah. Unfor-unfortunately, most people have to, leave around eight. but super nice to have you, Julian. We can still spend a couple of minutes after to debrief if you have time. but then-

Julian (Bambi): Sure. Thank you.

Celine V: Cool. Daniel, I don't know. Do you see yourself in the lead, of this and I should be the contributor? does that make sense?

Daniel T: I think if you want to take the lead, I'm-- like, I'm happy for us to, like, co-lead-

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: And then I sort of hand over to you. Right now, because I feel it's so important, it's hard for me to let go of it-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: And just say like, "Oh, yeah," like, you know, just like, you know, forget it, 'cause I've committed to the board and to various members-

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Daniel T: That, like, you know, there's gonna be clear information about this. So it's very important.

Celine V: Yeah.

Daniel T: Like, I've made a personal commitment there. But if we work together for a bit and you s- you're like-

Celine V: Sure.

Daniel T: "No, just let me handle this," then, you know, I'm not as, Chris can probably confirm, and Ben, if he's still on, I'm not a sort of, micromanaging control freak. Like I'm quite happy delegating. But,...

Celine V: Cool. No, but then let's work on it together, and I think it will be-- we will-- we can go into detail bilaterally, and we'll of course, also in this group then show a bit, the results, and you can give us feedback. Then actually the next one, and I briefly checked it in the statutes. So there's also the voting mechanism, right? If you have multiple options, it's not only a yes or no, but you need a voting mechanism. And, Daniel, you have shared some ideas. And, basically there is different, solutions to this, right? And I started brainstorming a little bit, but it's also just a draft. so on the voting mechanism, is it the board that decides? Is it the GA itself that decides? It would probably be a bit of an overkill, right? First decide on the voting mechanism and then voting and stuff. But, for me, this is still an open question and could be something that we within this also target Daniel And sorry, maybe Chris, you already had your hand up. so please go ahead.

Chris O: Yeah. I think what I was gonna say is more about the concrete, concrete input on the voting. So maybe that's not, something to talk about right now. But, we will probably move on to that soon enough. but when it comes to where it should come from, I think it would make sense for the general assembly to start by, you know,... What's the, what's a good English word for it? It's a good question. But like, basically having a sort of run book kind of thing where it's like, "Okay, this is how we're gonna do things." And that proposal very sensibly would come from, a governance working group. I think that makes a lot of sense. and there are considerations in here in terms of how this vote needs to work to be, kind of compatible with our statutes. So I think there's some, some things to keep in mind there. but I think it would make a lot of sense for the general assembly to say, "Yes, we're okay with this." And like, th-this is the kind of, this is the kind of decision that's, you know, it's not gonna be con-controversial, hopefully. where it's just like you have the beginning of the meeting, this is how we propose to do things. Anyone against? Good. No. Done. Okay. Right. That's, that's how I would envision that to go at least in... Maybe, maybe not in the organization, like to begin with at the first meeting. Maybe there's some discussion. But like as soon as you kind of start having a culture around these things, this starts becoming very easy. So I don't think it's,-- You know, I don't wanna make it the Wild West and just be like, "Okay, first item for the general assembly, let's figure out from nothing how we're gonna vote." Like, that's, that's gonna be chaos. but that we, this working group then through the board proposes this is how we think we should do because we've thought about this and this and this and that, I think that makes a lot of sense. And then the general assembly is gonna say, "Yeah, okay. That sounds good." Like that would, that would make sense to me.

Celine V: Yeah. Thanks, Chris. Daniel?

Daniel T: Yeah. So I mean, like, for the-- for this particular vote, it feels like the mechanism that we use to elect the board makes sense, which is the ranked voting, which allows multiple choice, including the rejection of all choices. if there... So long... Like, as long as there's a way to reject the vote itself, it feels like that's, that's a decent mechanism, for now. And yes, it would be great to have more clearly defined mechanisms, which mechanism applies for what. So for elections, for example, or like multiple choices like this, maybe ranked voting makes sense. For a statute changes, maybe yes, no voting, or like, you know, Switzerland has yes, no and counter project sometimes. but like having just very clearly defined, mechanisms and when they apply would be a great bit of, you know, governance definition to have, for the longer term. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... for th- for this one, it feels to me like this, like it's fairly obvious that it needs to be a kind of ranked voting because it's not clear that any single date will win the first round. Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... so we need something that can like, you know, have where the highest vote is twenty-five percent on one date, but that doesn't mean that we're like, "Oh, we only got twenty-five percent on one date, therefore we can't move the date." Um-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... and yeah. So the ranked voting seems to be a very common popular mechanism for this, so-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Daniel T: ... feels like an obvious choice here.

Celine V: So should we take that up directly, Daniel, in our proposal? I mean, we prepare the information and vote- voting mechanism or kind of like phrase it out, as a whole concept. Does that make sense?

Daniel T: Yeah. Sure. Let's chat about this, out of this meeting.

Celine V: Yep.

Daniel T: And, yeah. We can chat about it-

Celine V: Okay. Great

Daniel T: ... on the governance, on the governance channel.

Celine V: Sounds good. Maybe we get some input there as well, right? that sounds great. okay. Then as we're-- as the group is also getting bigger and bigger, we're starting, to distribute some tasks, which I think is good. I also wanted to talk briefly about the format and how we meet in the future. so should it be weekly meetings, or do you think it's better to have bi-weekly meetings? That would in general be a bit my question, or it can, of course, also be another format. I think we need more touch points to work on these tasks, but, yeah, let people organize themselves there. so in this group, what do you think? How sh-- How often should we meet? Does everybody agree to weekly meetings?

Kate B: I don't think I have time, sorry.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Kate B: Or at least, yeah, it's gonna be tough.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Kate, do you think it's bi-weekly meetings will be fine or...?

Kate B: I think bi-annually. Pigeon post. And bi-weekly is totally fine, and then like as people need to collaborate as they wish, I guess.

Celine V: Mm-hmm.

Kate B: I mean, it would be ideal to do a weekly, but in the beginning-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Kate B: ... but it's a lot for pe-- for volunteers, I think, especially as we invite new people in and-

Celine V: Mm-hmm

Kate B: ... try to gain cons-consistency.

Celine V: Okay. Yeah, thanks for openly sharing, your opinion, Kate. So is everybody fine with bi-weekly meetings? Perfect. I see some thumbs up. then I wanted to ask, I mean, I just put some, timeframes here that I thought could work. Um- Maybe what I could do, I think not everyone is in the chat yet, but I will make sure that everybody's in the WhatsApp group, and I can create a poll there, and you can vote. Does that make sense? I will take that as an action so we can actually figure out what's best for most. Uh-

Daniel T: Why, why not create it in the governance group so people know that we're scheduling a meeting?

Celine V: Yeah. I mean, I'm fine. And then they can still, share if they want to, join or if-- how they want to engage and stuff. Yep. bi-weekly. Perfect.

Kate B: Sorry.

Celine V: Sorry, Kate?

Kate B: I'm curious how, like, as... Is it-- Does it become like a lesser meeting about work and more like an updates call if it's like anyone can join? Because sometimes, like, if we get-- if we have a clear goal and there's people, like, working on things, we need the time to, like, back and forth, to make little, like, ideas, to brainstorm, and it can be hard to constantly onboard people into that. So I wonder if there's like a boundary or membership question or like how we got-- we're back, right back to the start of the circle. Like, who's doing the work of the working group? Because working to me is about working with a group, if we can call it that. And like, how do we remain accountable? And how do we help bring people in who want information? Or like, how do we involve people that might not necessarily wanna, like, take work items, but we need to make sure they have the information?

Celine V: Anna, do you want to reply to this, or should we leave that as an open question to everyone?

Anna T: I think, I don't, I don't have a reply to it, but just that they're great questions, to think about. Sure. I have a definite desire to be really clear posting on the Discord now and to tell people again that, like, this is a thing that's happening, and to invite people. Like, there was an announcement in the, call, and there were eighty something people on the call, so a lot of people already heard about this. My sense is that posting again on the Discord, being clear this is forming, we're looking for when we're gonna meet, is not gonna mean that thirty people join. I mean, they might, and then we deal with that, but it seems like there already was an announcement. But it does seem to me like this meeting was-- I kind of inferred it from a message that Kate wrote rather than there actually being a message on the group saying, "We're having a meeting. Who would like to join?" So it still felt-- still feels a bit like the conception of the group hasn't been really, like, brought to the community and said, "Hey, this is, this is it. This is when we're meeting." And that I feel would bring a lot more trust. But the questions around, like, quantity of membership, that kind of thing in a group, that, like, those, those are all really valid questions. It doesn't, doesn't mean, like, it's a run-on thing anyone can join anytime. Just like I have a consent team of six people, and it does not make sense for us to have more leads than that. So we close it at that and present it at that. But in the kind of inception of this, then I feel like there needs to be a bit more communication, a bit more invitation, and then, yeah, all of Kate's questions.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Emil?

Daniel T: Yeah. I mean, it feels to me like in any case, a group that's meeting every two weeks is gonna be a kind of update group, because we cannot do work in one hour every two weeks. I mean, we've had board meetings since the beginning of the year twice weekly at some point, and the vast, vast majority of the work happened outside the board meetings, even though they were much more frequent than once every two weeks. because like, you know, the meeting is the bit where you synchronize with all the other people and you like, you know, figure out... Like you-- Like as a board, you also make formal decisions when you need to, but a lot of the work happens in calls outside, like, you know, negotiations about containers or like, you know, conversations about like votes or like, you know, Daniela doing enormous amounts of work to like do the production and so on. Most of the work tends to happen outside of the meetings, here as it does everywhere else in the-- all the, all the organizat-- human organizations, I think. so, question about the tr-- the, board meeting. I've pushed for that. I tried to, I tried to push for that for the publication. Unfortunately, we had these legal issues and, that meant that we couldn't be as transparent as I would really like us to be. But if I had had my way, all the transcripts of every board meeting would have been published. So, I do practice what I preach there. the,... Yeah, so if thirty people join, then, you know, it becomes a different kind of update meeting. If it's like-- I doubt there's gonna be thirty people involved in governance, but the fact that the meeting is announced and is clear, it's transparent, anybody could have joined, it creates an in-- like by itself, it creates a kind of legitimacy because then when a decision happens that somebody's like, "Well, I don't agree with that," they're gonna be like, "Well, you know, the meeting was announced. Like, you know, there's been a meeting every two weeks for the last three months. It's been announced on Discord. It's been transparent. You could have joined any time. You didn't decide to get involved. So this decision happened without you for now. But feel free to get involved if you care about this topic." And then they'll think about it. They'll be like, "Actually, I don't care about it enough to get involved, so fine, I'll let somebody else make the decision." And that becomes a kind of legitimacy building even in a disagreement situation. Whilst if it's a meeting that they could not have joined, even if they had known about it, like they could not have joined because there was no way for them to know about it, and the decision happens, and they feel it happened behind their back in this way, then it loses legitimacy when they disagree because they feel like they didn't have a chance to participate in the process. That's, that's a huge benefit, I think, of being transparent about the existence of these meetings.

Celine V: Sense to me as well, and I can... As I will send a poll, right, in the Discord, channel. I think I got quite some input from you now how I should formulate it. So I will not say everybody's invited, but I will ask for people to contribute and who will be willing to put some work in because I agree with Kate, it's a working group, right? Sooner or later, everybody should also grab a task and know why they're in the working group. so I will just formulate it that way and maybe have even a brief check-in with people like, "Hey, super cool, that you reached out. How would you like to contribute so that we make sure that we're, an active group?" Does that make sense? Great. Nice. Okay then, as I also want to respect, people's time, and I know some people have to leave for a hopefully delicious dinner, we still have to point open the skills needed for the governance group, but I think this could even be a bit of a bigger discussion. And I would actually, vouch here for a proposal. So maybe somebody can work on a proposal, and then we can discuss it next time. So the point is here mainly, do we still need additional skills? And maybe somebody or we could then also assign people to it, right? Who will make sure that we have good communication? Who will make sure, yeah, that we have all these things covered, right? That the research is done and so on. So is there somebody who would prepare a proposal for the meeting then in two weeks?

Daniel T: I'm still not entirely sure what is the proposal about. What skills are needed?

Celine V: Yeah. I think maybe not only the skills but also roles, I guess, right? So to make sure that everything is covered in the working group. can I ask a quick question? I think it's-

Chris O: Sorry. I'm speaking without putting my hand up.

Celine V: All good. Go ahead. Go ahead, please.

Chris O: Like if we try to take s... If we're working at speed, which it sounds like we need to, having some roles, not necessarily fixed roles, like dynamic roles that say, "Hey, I'm stepping into this," just like we're doing this call. We're dividing up tasks. What's-- what am I being accountable for? Like, is there like a facilitator role, Celine, that you're doing right now to an excellent level that you agree to like, energize, let's call it, or steward for the next month or two? I'm not voluntelling you, but like, for example, is there someone that's like helping us with research, which seems essential? Is there someone that's communicating back to the community? Like, I think I h- I'm hearing Anna making sure that's like a role that's energized. Maybe that's too small as a role, but like, just so that it's like we're like figuring out who's doing what and how do we hold each other to account. And as we like bring people into this, we know what's missing. And I think definitely we-- I don't know how the board deals with this, but I'd love to know. How do you get input from the Spanish law, perspective? And also, yeah, Bambi, your face. Sorry, I haven't seen you. like the financial aspect to how we make decisions around finances and budget at the GA, which is like a very big part of governance and that you have a lot of experience on. Like, these are types of roles. Just as an idea.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Daniel?

Daniel T: I have a sort of like a leaning towards being somewhat reactive on this in the sense that we have a lot of like pretty talented people already here. I don't know who's gonna be here in two weeks, but there's already a decent number of people here with a decent amount of experience. We're inevitably gonna find that there's some gaps, and maybe what we need is once we identify, okay, there's a gap here. We need-- We just need this. Like, then we can like make a call to the community in a community call or via communication stuff, say, "Hey, we really need an expert in association law," or whatever. Like, you know, whatever it is. And then we make the call for that specific skill, rather than sort of creating formal roles right now, which I do see the benefit of it, but it also gets kind of... It also feels like a kind of, like, let me use the word, I really don't mean it as a kind of pejorative, but like kind of busy work where we just create stuff that we need to do that's not really the work that we wanna do. Like it's,... So it... I trust that we're able to dynamically go into the work that meet-- that fi- fits us. And then once we identify, oh, there's a gap here. Nobody wants to do this thing, but it's really important, then we make a call for help to the community. And I'm pretty sure somebody will step in because there's a lot of people in this community who are really amazing.

Julian (Bambi): Yeah. I totally... I want to more or less say what Daniel said. let's see what we're missing once we're working, and I would rather focus, on defining a working group, the goals, which is I think the second point. I was not here when you talked about it, but it seems like there's an open task, and then see if there's, gaps there.

Celine V: Chris?

Chris O: Yeah. Also, agree with Daniel on that. but, I mean, this is the last point on the agenda, I think. Is there more that comes after this? If not-

Celine V: Nope

Chris O: ... you know, maybe the... It would be good to see what people in this room, like what are they, thinking about they would wanna contribute to, so that we kind of fill that already.

Celine V: Mm-hmm. Daniel?

Daniel T: I just wanted to answer the question about lawyers because that is quite relevant to governance. We do have a legal firm, Accountax, that's, retained. We also have Pepe, who's a Mexican lawyer rather than Spanish, but is a lawyer, like a chief legal officer of an investment group and stuff. Like, he's got a lot of experience. However, the experience has been that it's very slow to get answers from Spanish lawyers. We don't have a premium firm that's gonna answer in like, you know, five minutes. We don't pay the price, to get that. So it's very much a case of like one question at a time and like, you know. So we can't expect quick answers. The quickest answers we're gonna get are gonna be from, you know, AI, then verified by Pepe, who's a little bit more responsive, but he's also a volunteer, you know. He's got other stuff to do. but he's, he's a bit more responsive than our Spanish lawyers. And then finally, when we really need it, the kind of verification from Accountax, like when it's a really legally, important matter, and then we need to chase them for a few weeks to get an answer sometimes. that's the situation with the lawyers. I just wanted to clarify that point. in terms of skills, I don't know. I don't know how to define my skill set.

Celine V: Yeah, I think what I heard from the group now that it's rather a bit of a backlog topic to define the whole concept, but I mean, we should make sure that we all know who is doing what right now and what their interests and skills are. So what I would propose that I, write down all our names, and we can add here kind of like the name, maybe role or skills so that we have a little bit of understanding who could do what. Does that make sense? And maybe we can then discuss it actually next time and reflect on it. But like this, it's a bit like an inventory of our skills. Okay. Good. I see some thumbs up. and with this, we're actually at the end of, the whole discussion. Thank you very much, for joining, and you'll get the poll, to decide on the next one. And then maybe, Julian, if you still want to stay so I can summarize the beginning, you just stay. But, it... I should also be, written down, but we can have a short chat. And then also, I think I don't have Peter's phone number yet to add him to the,-

Daniel T: I can share it

Celine V: ... WhatsApp group. So if somebody can share it or add it.

Daniel T: I can share it, yeah. are we-

Celine V: Amazing

Daniel T: ... happy to publish, minutes and transcript of this meeting?

Celine V: Happy to do so.

Daniel T: Yeah.

Celine V: I think that would be good. I can post it with the message for the invitation for the poll. makes sense. Okay. Perfect. Then thank you so much. Have a nice evening, and enjoy your dinner. See you soon.

Anna T: Thank you, everyone.

Celine V: Thank you so much.