Skip to content

Giveth Governance Meeting #34

June 7th, 2018

Youtube Livestream - Gov Mtg 34


Vojtech, RJ, Kris, Kay, Griff, Lindsay, Yalor, Adam, Alex

dropped-in: XXX left-early: XXX


Griff - distracted b/c on the move, intention for quick easy meeting, curious to see how many of these loomio proposals actually get talked about Yalor - here just to speak to loomio proposal then dip Kay - quick meeting, loomios Lorelei - Alex - bit distracted by tech setup, looking fwd to hearing everyone Kris - looking fwd to loomio proposals, but only discuss ones that have been around more than 24 hours b/c haven't had time to address others. Vojtech - a little distracted Lindsay - intention to go over whatever the team thinks is important right now Adam - here to check out first gov mtg RJ - intend for quick meeting, since we all just saw each other a couple days ago


Yalor's proposal first since he has to leave Toggled-Off: Adam


  • Point1: Milestone Incentivization - Yalor
  • Point2: What donations do we accept and what do we do with those we decide to reject? - Vojtech
  • Point3: Reinventing 'Is it safe enough to try' - Satya



Milestone public shaming doesn't feel right


Create an incentivisation credit so we are rewarding people for creating good milestones. We reward them for creating a good milestone the first time, without review/feedback. The part that's missing is the definition of what a beautiful milestone is, this comes from the Milestone Tutorial.

Clarifying Questions

At what point and by who is it determined if this incentivization will be awarded? - By the triple checkers, Bowen and Lorelei. Should they ask the campaign managers/reviewers if there was a back and forth? because camp mgrs can edit, without the triple checker knowing that -Perhaps that is a deeper question to explore, how many campaign managers are revising? -Will this really free up time for reviewers? -Yalor's understanding was that the triple checkers were the ones getting their time really backed up by this... -Lindsey: Reviewers still need to be active. -Lorelei: There are people that will read the tutorial, and make beautiful milestones... this incentivization process will help people create good milestones, but reviewers still need to be active.


Griff - great proposal, we have to create the format, so this is awesome. as we work on it and find more things that are wrong. this is a great opportunity for us to solve a tragedy of the commons issue where as quality a milestone decreases the effort saved by not making a good milestone is captured by the person that makes the shitty milestone, but the actual cost is beared by the Campaign as a whole who's asthetic appeal is lessened... Incentivizing management of the quality of this shared resource is needed and this is a way to do that. Alex - not a great idea to financially incentivize people to do this. it's not easily definable. there's no flat rate is there? i think it's a waste of money. Kay - it should not be a financial incentive. but...its not working as is. I like incentivization, i'm not sure about the 5%... could be really high territory, i would cap it. it might complicate and introduce new errors, but we don't have a better suggestion yet, i would love a better suggestion. Kris - good arguments. good idea to incentivize people. Lorelei - clarifying question: First time someone makes a good milestone without a back and forth is that only the first time and after that it never happens again? this seems safe enough to try... i think we should cap it, 5% uncapped is not safe enough to try... i dont see this solving problems enough so i dont want to put a lot of effort in... so if i have to go ask the campaign manager about it thats probably too much to make it worth it. RJ - generally like the idea of incentivisation, but this is missing the mark a little bit. should the proposer really get the reward if it's successful by the time it hits the triple check point? because at that point the correctness of the milestone could be due to a lot of work on campaign manager and reviewrs part Vojtech - safe enough to try for now, if we find out it doesn't work, deal with it then Lindsay - i think we should wait one more week before we even put it into motion, give some more time to flesh out details and parameters. generally safe enough to try

Amend and Clarify

Proposal doesn't go into action until after 1 week period of discussion on loomio, and define a cap and how it will work with reviewers. response to lorelei's clarifying q: unclear, resolve these details in loomio later



Vojtech tabled

Satya tabled

Cardona decisions validation: postpone for fireside chat

Kris - also fireside chat


Lots of opinions re: shame vs. monetized incentivization, generally feels safe enough to try but requires more detailed fleshing out of the proposal before it can be passed into action.


Kris - thanks for efficient mtg Lindsay - nice and quick, glad we're talking about milestones Kay - thanks, cool mtg, wasn't the most efficient, whoever drank beer, sponnet put up the qr code. everybody who drank a beer can you pay a little RJ - rough mtg, its over now good Lorelei - rough mtg, felt like proposal wasn't ready to discuss Adam - Vojtech - thanks for the meeting, clarifying q: is qr pay for beer and wine? yes.

End of meeting