Non-Constitutional
To adopt Huddle01 Meet as our default video call tool for all DAO calls. The Huddle01 Meet Business plan provides a web3 native video call solution of up to 500 participants per video meeting, unlimited recording storage on IPFS, token-gated DAO meetings only for wallets with the "ARB" token or other tokens, multi-streaming to multiple platforms like X.com, Youtube and Twitch at the same time, and a custom arbitrum.huddle01.app subdomain for $50 USD a month. The Huddle01 team have been solely building on Arbitrum and as a gesture of support provided by the Arbitrum ecosystem has agreed to provide this service to the Arbitrum DAO for free, for the first 6 months, for us to try it out.
Right now, our current system is based on a shared community-run google calendar, and where community members can ask one of the calendar managers to schedule a video call for any initiative in the DAO.
The scheduler needs to provide their own video call URL, which has usually been a Google Meet link, and needs to make sure they have host privileges to that specific video call URL, so that they can accept participants into the meeting and also needs to make sure that they have a paid Google Apps account to be able to record the meeting and host the recording files in their Google Drive and shared them publicly afterwards.
This setup has led to several situations in the past where, either the host of the Google Meet was not able to get into the meeting at the start time of the event and therefor nobody could get into the video call, or the host of the meeting didn't have a paid Google Apps account and therefor couldn't record the video call to share with the whole DAO afterwards.
Also, since currently most of the recordings are stored in someone's Google Apps paid accounts, sometimes those recording don't have the correct sharing permissions to be publicly accessible and can be lost if the owner of those Google Apps accounts decides to delete them or stop paying for their Google Apps account.
With Huddle01 Meet, we will be able to solve all of these problems, while using an Arbitrum powered and web3 native video call service that uploads recordings straight to IPFS.
Huddle01 Meet is the 1st onchain audio/video meeting app built on Huddle01 Network - the 1st DePIN for real-time connectivity, powered by Arbitrum. They are one of the largest DePIN network on Arbitrum which utilises orbit chain and is a top layer3 on Arbitrum. It started in 2020 and is backed by top VCs like Fenbushi Capital, Hashkey Capital, M31 Capital, Protocol Labs and more. With 2000+ nodes already live and more than 100K MBPS of bandwidth contributed on the supply side, the DePIN has also clocked in ~ 8 Million minutes with consistent demand from its own app, "Huddle01 Meet" and a couple of other apps as well.
As you can see, Huddle01 has been mentioned by the x.com official Arbitrum account as one of the best examples of apps building on Arbitrum.
I personally believe that we, delegates in Arbitrum DAO, should be an example of eating our own dog food, and we should be using web3 native and Arbitrum powered apps like Huddle01 Meet.
So, as an experiment, I've organized a DAO call last week, using Huddle01 Meet for the coordination of the ETH Bucharest Sponsorship, and the feedback from the delegates that used Huddle01 Meet in that call was quite positive. Here's the recording of that call.
With Huddle01 Meet, we will be able to create a setup where the community-run calendar managers, can easily created an event in the already currently shared Google calendar as they usually do, but then, instead of adding the scheduler provided video call link, they can add a dedicated Huddle01 Meet video call link using the Huddle01 Google Apps extension, with just 1 extra click.
Then we can have several managers of the Arbitrum Business Huddle01 Meet account, that can edit the video call events, add multiple hosts (either with email or wallet), token-gate certain calls, etc.
We can also have an Arbitrum themed arbitrum.huddle01.app page where users can join any Arbitrum DAO Huddle01 Meet Video calls from that can be branded as we like.
arbitrum subdomain :white_check_mark:
I've took the initiative to purchase the arbitrum.huddle01.app Business account a little more than a month ago, to reserve the subdomain and to test out the Huddle01 Meet app.Until April 7th – Get social consensus here in the forum to see if there is alignment on moving forward with this idea, and execute step 2 outlined above. Between April 7th and 22nd – If there's social consensus, execute step 3 of the implementation steps above to test out the new setup with all delegates in all types of calls already scheduled in the calendar. These 2 weeks should be enough to cover all different calls we do, including the security council election call. Between April 22nd and 24th – Decide if we should put up to a vote a policy to enforce video calls in Arbitrum DAO to be done via Huddle01 Meet and/or for the recordings of those calls to be stored in IPFS. On April 24th – If so, create a policy to proceed to a temperature check offchain voting on Snapshot to ratify the decision. Between April 24th and May 1st – Policy content available for discussion here in the forum On May 1st – Post the offchain vote on Snapshot.
Free for the first 6 months, starting April 27th. Then $50 USD a month, and that expense could potentially be paid by the @Arbitrum Foundation, as with the other software subscriptions they already pay for the DAO.
P.S.: I've paid from my own pocket, 2 monthly payments from February 27th to March 26th, and from March 27th to April 26th, which can be seen as my personal contribution to try to help with this issue and I expect nothing in return for those. But I wouldn't mind some DIP Bonus Points for putting up the effort to figure all of this out and for doing this proposal. =)
Non-Constitutional
To adopt Huddle01 Meet as our default video call tool for all DAO calls. The Huddle01 Meet Business plan provides a web3 native video call solution of up to 500 participants per video meeting, unlimited recording storage on IPFS, token-gated DAO meetings only for wallets with the "ARB" token or other tokens, multi-streaming to multiple platforms like X.com, Youtube and Twitch at the same time, and a custom arbitrum.huddle01.app subdomain for $50 USD a month. The Huddle01 team have been solely building on Arbitrum and as a gesture of support provided by the Arbitrum ecosystem has agreed to provide this service to the Arbitrum DAO for free, for the first 6 months, for us to try it out.
Right now, our current system is based on a shared community-run google calendar, and where community members can ask one of the calendar managers to schedule a video call for any initiative in the DAO.
The scheduler needs to provide their own video call URL, which has usually been a Google Meet link, and needs to make sure they have host privileges to that specific video call URL, so that they can accept participants into the meeting and also needs to make sure that they have a paid Google Apps account to be able to record the meeting and host the recording files in their Google Drive and shared them publicly afterwards.
This setup has led to several situations in the past where, either the host of the Google Meet was not able to get into the meeting at the start time of the event and therefor nobody could get into the video call, or the host of the meeting didn't have a paid Google Apps account and therefor couldn't record the video call to share with the whole DAO afterwards.
Also, since currently most of the recordings are stored in someone's Google Apps paid accounts, sometimes those recording don't have the correct sharing permissions to be publicly accessible and can be lost if the owner of those Google Apps accounts decides to delete them or stop paying for their Google Apps account.
With Huddle01 Meet, we will be able to solve all of these problems, while using an Arbitrum powered and web3 native video call service that uploads recordings straight to IPFS.
Huddle01 Meet is the 1st onchain audio/video meeting app built on Huddle01 Network - the 1st DePIN for real-time connectivity, powered by Arbitrum. They are one of the largest DePIN network on Arbitrum which utilises orbit chain and is a top layer3 on Arbitrum. It started in 2020 and is backed by top VCs like Fenbushi Capital, Hashkey Capital, M31 Capital, Protocol Labs and more. With 2000+ nodes already live and more than 100K MBPS of bandwidth contributed on the supply side, the DePIN has also clocked in ~ 8 Million minutes with consistent demand from its own app, "Huddle01 Meet" and a couple of other apps as well.
As you can see, Huddle01 has been mentioned by the x.com official Arbitrum account as one of the best examples of apps building on Arbitrum.
I personally believe that we, delegates in Arbitrum DAO, should be an example of eating our own dog food, and we should be using web3 native and Arbitrum powered apps like Huddle01 Meet.
So, as an experiment, I've organized a DAO call last week, using Huddle01 Meet for the coordination of the ETH Bucharest Sponsorship, and the feedback from the delegates that used Huddle01 Meet in that call was quite positive. Here's the recording of that call.
With Huddle01 Meet, we will be able to create a setup where the community-run calendar managers, can easily created an event in the already currently shared Google calendar as they usually do, but then, instead of adding the scheduler provided video call link, they can add a dedicated Huddle01 Meet video call link using the Huddle01 Google Apps extension, with just 1 extra click.
Then we can have several managers of the Arbitrum Business Huddle01 Meet account, that can edit the video call events, add multiple hosts (either with email or wallet), token-gate certain calls, etc.
We can also have an Arbitrum themed arbitrum.huddle01.app page where users can join any Arbitrum DAO Huddle01 Meet Video calls from that can be branded as we like.
arbitrum subdomain :white_check_mark:
I've took the initiative to purchase the arbitrum.huddle01.app Business account a little more than a month ago, to reserve the subdomain and to test out the Huddle01 Meet app.Until April 7th – Get social consensus here in the forum to see if there is alignment on moving forward with this idea, and execute step 2 outlined above. Between April 7th and 22nd – If there's social consensus, execute step 3 of the implementation steps above to test out the new setup with all delegates in all types of calls already scheduled in the calendar. These 2 weeks should be enough to cover all different calls we do, including the security council election call. Between April 22nd and 24th – Decide if we should put up to a vote a policy to enforce video calls in Arbitrum DAO to be done via Huddle01 Meet and/or for the recordings of those calls to be stored in IPFS. On April 24th – If so, create a policy to proceed to a temperature check offchain voting on Snapshot to ratify the decision. Between April 24th and May 1st – Policy content available for discussion here in the forum On May 1st – Post the offchain vote on Snapshot.
Free for the first 6 months, starting April 27th. Then $50 USD a month, and that expense could potentially be paid by the @Arbitrum Foundation, as with the other software subscriptions they already pay for the DAO.
P.S.: I've paid from my own pocket, 2 monthly payments from February 27th to March 26th, and from March 27th to April 26th, which can be seen as my personal contribution to try to help with this issue and I expect nothing in return for those. But I wouldn't mind some DIP Bonus Points for putting up the effort to figure all of this out and for doing this proposal. =)
agreed on the global diversity part, right now we do have recordings available and very soon we plan to bring the transcripts for the meeting (probably around next week). It will be helpful for the other people to catchup on the discussion.
agreed on the global diversity part, right now we do have recordings available and very soon we plan to bring the transcripts for the meeting (probably around next week). It will be helpful for the other people to catchup on the discussion.
Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
for a subdomain, we have team section where different contributors can be added who can manage the subdomain and create the links and host the event and make other people host during the schedule process
this will prevent having dependancy on a single person for scheduling and hosting the calss
I’m also not a native English speaker, and I find live transcription (or closed captions) very useful in calls. It would be great if this feature could be added.
I’m also not a native English speaker, and I find live transcription (or closed captions) very useful in calls. It would be great if this feature could be added.
thanks for sharing the feedback on the live transcription, we do have plan to introduce such features in the platform with time right now, in near future we planning to bring the meeting transcript summary which might be helpful for people to grasp the summary of the meeting
it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
Platform Guides:
it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
Platform Guides:
Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
for a subdomain, we have team section where different contributors can be added who can manage the subdomain and create the links and host the event and make other people host during the schedule process
this will prevent having dependancy on a single person for scheduling and hosting the calss
I’m also not a native English speaker, and I find live transcription (or closed captions) very useful in calls. It would be great if this feature could be added.
I’m also not a native English speaker, and I find live transcription (or closed captions) very useful in calls. It would be great if this feature could be added.
thanks for sharing the feedback on the live transcription, we do have plan to introduce such features in the platform with time right now, in near future we planning to bring the meeting transcript summary which might be helpful for people to grasp the summary of the meeting
it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
Platform Guides:
it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
Platform Guides:
Thank you so much @paulofonseca for bringing up this great proposal.
As an event organizer and community builder at Ethereum Bolivia, as a community we have always struggled to have video meet tools that can help us host calls with mire that 10 people connected with no-time restricment and to have log reports to effectively know who attended or not our virtual events, and we found Huddle01 on socials and decides to try it out for a Q&A session for our last Buildathon ETH Bolivia 2024.
Thank you so much @paulofonseca for bringing up this great proposal.
As an event organizer and community builder at Ethereum Bolivia, as a community we have always struggled to have video meet tools that can help us host calls with mire that 10 people connected with no-time restricment and to have log reports to effectively know who attended or not our virtual events, and we found Huddle01 on socials and decides to try it out for a Q&A session for our last Buildathon ETH Bolivia 2024.
This experience was really extraordinary, as we had 46 attendees, we were able to record and post the recording in our social media accounts, had a log report as .csv file that served us as base to airdrop Unlock NFT certificates to all the attendees and have onchain impact report of the activity. Take into account that 90% of attendees were completely new to web3, so didn't have a wallet and just connected through their emails or as guests with no need to give even an email.
From that date till now Huddle01 has made significant improvements, listening to all the user feedback, reports and even experiencing by first hand by joining calls to check how users are experiencing video calls in general, which shows an extreme commitment to make and improve the user experience of decentralized apps.
Would love to see this implemented into Arbitrum DAO calls and lead by example in this industry, supporting and using Arbitrum based products and apps, and strengthening the bond between layer-app to bring 1 Billion new users into Ethereum and Arbitrum.
This is a thoughtful proposal, @paulofonseca, and I appreciate your initiative in seeking a more aligned solution for our DAO's video calls. We should explore the move towards an Arbitrum-native tool like Huddle01, as it resonates with our commitment to the ecosystem.
Like many others, I see the clear advantages in terms of on-chain recording storage and the potential for more flexible host management, which addresses some of the current pain points with Google Meet.
This is a thoughtful proposal, @paulofonseca, and I appreciate your initiative in seeking a more aligned solution for our DAO's video calls. We should explore the move towards an Arbitrum-native tool like Huddle01, as it resonates with our commitment to the ecosystem.
Like many others, I see the clear advantages in terms of on-chain recording storage and the potential for more flexible host management, which addresses some of the current pain points with Google Meet.
However, the feedback from delegates like @danielo regarding past technical issues and the concerns of @JoJo and others about potential friction for users are essential considerations. Ensuring a smooth and reliable experience for all delegates is paramount for effective governance.
Therefore, I believe the proposed two-week trial is a crucial step. To make this trial truly valuable, I'd suggest we establish clear success metrics beforehand; This should include technical stability (mic/camera, login) and user experience feedback across different devices and geographies. A brief survey could be circulated after each test call to gather structured feedback.
Ultimately, while I'm enthusiastic about supporting Arbitrum builders, our primary responsibility as delegates is to ensure the efficiency and accessibility of our governance processes. A successful trial with robust feedback will be key in making an informed decision.
Melra 🜁 | Independent Delegate
Thank you so much @paulofonseca for bringing up this great proposal.
As an event organizer and community builder at Ethereum Bolivia, as a community we have always struggled to have video meet tools that can help us host calls with mire that 10 people connected with no-time restricment and to have log reports to effectively know who attended or not our virtual events, and we found Huddle01 on socials and decides to try it out for a Q&A session for our last Buildathon ETH Bolivia 2024.
Thank you so much @paulofonseca for bringing up this great proposal.
As an event organizer and community builder at Ethereum Bolivia, as a community we have always struggled to have video meet tools that can help us host calls with mire that 10 people connected with no-time restricment and to have log reports to effectively know who attended or not our virtual events, and we found Huddle01 on socials and decides to try it out for a Q&A session for our last Buildathon ETH Bolivia 2024.
This experience was really extraordinary, as we had 46 attendees, we were able to record and post the recording in our social media accounts, had a log report as .csv file that served us as base to airdrop Unlock NFT certificates to all the attendees and have onchain impact report of the activity. Take into account that 90% of attendees were completely new to web3, so didn't have a wallet and just connected through their emails or as guests with no need to give even an email.
From that date till now Huddle01 has made significant improvements, listening to all the user feedback, reports and even experiencing by first hand by joining calls to check how users are experiencing video calls in general, which shows an extreme commitment to make and improve the user experience of decentralized apps.
Would love to see this implemented into Arbitrum DAO calls and lead by example in this industry, supporting and using Arbitrum based products and apps, and strengthening the bond between layer-app to bring 1 Billion new users into Ethereum and Arbitrum.
This is a thoughtful proposal, @paulofonseca, and I appreciate your initiative in seeking a more aligned solution for our DAO's video calls. We should explore the move towards an Arbitrum-native tool like Huddle01, as it resonates with our commitment to the ecosystem.
Like many others, I see the clear advantages in terms of on-chain recording storage and the potential for more flexible host management, which addresses some of the current pain points with Google Meet.
This is a thoughtful proposal, @paulofonseca, and I appreciate your initiative in seeking a more aligned solution for our DAO's video calls. We should explore the move towards an Arbitrum-native tool like Huddle01, as it resonates with our commitment to the ecosystem.
Like many others, I see the clear advantages in terms of on-chain recording storage and the potential for more flexible host management, which addresses some of the current pain points with Google Meet.
However, the feedback from delegates like @danielo regarding past technical issues and the concerns of @JoJo and others about potential friction for users are essential considerations. Ensuring a smooth and reliable experience for all delegates is paramount for effective governance.
Therefore, I believe the proposed two-week trial is a crucial step. To make this trial truly valuable, I'd suggest we establish clear success metrics beforehand; This should include technical stability (mic/camera, login) and user experience feedback across different devices and geographies. A brief survey could be circulated after each test call to gather structured feedback.
Ultimately, while I'm enthusiastic about supporting Arbitrum builders, our primary responsibility as delegates is to ensure the efficiency and accessibility of our governance processes. A successful trial with robust feedback will be key in making an informed decision.
Melra 🜁 | Independent Delegate
At Unlock Protocol DAO, we have been using Huddle01 for all of our regular DAO meetings and former Town Hall meetings. Yesterday, I started using the YouTube streaming function for the first time (we used to stream to Twitter), and it worked seamlessly.
Huddle is, in my opinion, not only a great piece of software and comes with an exceptionally supportive team, it also supports what we stand for as decentralized and blockchain-based communities. Instead of just talking the talk, let's commit to walking the walk <3
I suggest we create a clear onboarding plan and FAQ so delegates don’t struggle to use it.
Our team will be more than happy to layout a FAQ document to help delegates understand the platform in better way
At Unlock Protocol DAO, we have been using Huddle01 for all of our regular DAO meetings and former Town Hall meetings. Yesterday, I started using the YouTube streaming function for the first time (we used to stream to Twitter), and it worked seamlessly.
Huddle is, in my opinion, not only a great piece of software and comes with an exceptionally supportive team, it also supports what we stand for as decentralized and blockchain-based communities. Instead of just talking the talk, let's commit to walking the walk <3
I suggest we create a clear onboarding plan and FAQ so delegates don’t struggle to use it.
Our team will be more than happy to layout a FAQ document to help delegates understand the platform in better way
gm @danielo, thanks for sharing your feedback. Huddle01 Meet integration in meetwith.xyz was an iFrame embed due to which it has some limitationto get access of user mic at browser level for some devices, also based on feedback from that time we have made changes to our platform and tried to make thing smooth for user during login.
Incase of subdomain as it is running as full fledged webapp and not as a embed there are very slight chances of issues related to mic/camera access
gm @danielo, thanks for sharing your feedback. Huddle01 Meet integration in meetwith.xyz was an iFrame embed due to which it has some limitationto get access of user mic at browser level for some devices, also based on feedback from that time we have made changes to our platform and tried to make thing smooth for user during login.
Incase of subdomain as it is running as full fledged webapp and not as a embed there are very slight chances of issues related to mic/camera access
Paulo bought the business account and approached us with a proposition of using Huddle01 Meet for all the Arbitrum DAO calls. We love the idea and will be making our product team available to listen to your feedback to improve our product according to your needs as a DAO.
At Huddle01, we are avid product and protocol builders and are Arbitrum maxis. Huddle01 Network is DePIN (decentralized physical infrastructure network) built on top of Arbitrum Orbit Chain and Huddle01 Meet is a video conferencing application built on top of this network.
Paulo bought the business account and approached us with a proposition of using Huddle01 Meet for all the Arbitrum DAO calls. We love the idea and will be making our product team available to listen to your feedback to improve our product according to your needs as a DAO.
At Huddle01, we are avid product and protocol builders and are Arbitrum maxis. Huddle01 Network is DePIN (decentralized physical infrastructure network) built on top of Arbitrum Orbit Chain and Huddle01 Meet is a video conferencing application built on top of this network.
Huddle01 Meet is as scalable as web2 video conferencing applications, is crypto native and has considerably more distribution channels with multi-livestreaming option.
More about how we leverage Arbitrum for our network - https://huddle01.com/blog/huddle01-drtc-unveils-its-l3-on-arbitrum-powered-by-caldera
Please reach out to me for any feedbacks as well on X - https://x.com/ranjan3118
We are really excited to be of service to Arbitrum DAO.
My organization SI<3> has been very active users of Huddle01 with their Business Plan and subdomain for our community. We use Huddle01 for our team meetings and community sessions, and have enjoyed supporting decentralized tech and engaging with their team for product feedback. Like Stella from Unlock shared earlier here in this thread, we believe in being engaged participants in this emerging tech we are all building. We have had some minor hiccups with Huddle01, mostly with our members that are in Africa with lower bandwidth. The Huddle01 team has been very supportive of our ecosystem and joins our larger community calls to monitor performance. They even added a node in Africa for us when we requested it.
Paulo bought the business account and approached us with a proposition of using Huddle01 Meet for all the Arbitrum DAO calls. We love the idea and will be making our product team available to listen to your feedback to improve our product according to your needs as a DAO.
At Huddle01, we are avid product and protocol builders and are Arbitrum maxis. Huddle01 Network is DePIN (decentralized physical infrastructure network) built on top of Arbitrum Orbit Chain and Huddle01 Meet is a video conferencing application built on top of this network.
Paulo bought the business account and approached us with a proposition of using Huddle01 Meet for all the Arbitrum DAO calls. We love the idea and will be making our product team available to listen to your feedback to improve our product according to your needs as a DAO.
At Huddle01, we are avid product and protocol builders and are Arbitrum maxis. Huddle01 Network is DePIN (decentralized physical infrastructure network) built on top of Arbitrum Orbit Chain and Huddle01 Meet is a video conferencing application built on top of this network.
Huddle01 Meet is as scalable as web2 video conferencing applications, is crypto native and has considerably more distribution channels with multi-livestreaming option.
More about how we leverage Arbitrum for our network - https://huddle01.com/blog/huddle01-drtc-unveils-its-l3-on-arbitrum-powered-by-caldera
Please reach out to me for any feedbacks as well on X - https://x.com/ranjan3118
We are really excited to be of service to Arbitrum DAO.
My organization SI<3> has been very active users of Huddle01 with their Business Plan and subdomain for our community. We use Huddle01 for our team meetings and community sessions, and have enjoyed supporting decentralized tech and engaging with their team for product feedback. Like Stella from Unlock shared earlier here in this thread, we believe in being engaged participants in this emerging tech we are all building. We have had some minor hiccups with Huddle01, mostly with our members that are in Africa with lower bandwidth. The Huddle01 team has been very supportive of our ecosystem and joins our larger community calls to monitor performance. They even added a node in Africa for us when we requested it.
Thanks for trying
To be honest, I didn't have any problems with Huddle01, but I understand that it is quite difficult to compete with a multi-billion dollar company in such complex products as video communication
instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency.
instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency.
I echo Arana's support and the general phasic approach. I do want to reiterate that a simple, yet valuable addition to this transition will be a formalization of pre / post meeting process to accommodate for the permanence of IPFS storage. Arana, Sinkas, and other meeting leaders make it a great habit to inform attendees that a meeting is starting and prepare their audio/video settings accordingly. I believe this is a small bit of added care which benefits the respect and privacy of attendees greatly, given that, though myself and many others aren't, a good number of community contributors are non-doxxed, etc...
This would simply include a brief one or two line intro as standard process to all calls as well as perhaps a short, time limited space at the end of the call by which those who wanted to contribute off record could add comments / ask questions, etc...
Perhaps this could even be a standard recommended process made by Huddle itself.
I've been on one call with the new Huddle meetings and it worked well. I live in New Zealand and most DAO calls are my 2-6am local time. I rely heavily on recordings, transcription, AI summaries.
Right now the Huddle solution isn't compatible with AI notetaking tools and isn't fulfilling the needs I have to participate effectively in the DAO in an async manner which is a critical design constraint for a Globally diverse and participatory DAO membership base.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thanks, @paulofonseca for taking the initiative on this. We fully support the idea of using Web3 tools, and it’s even better that Huddle01 is built on Arbitrum. Using native tools shows our commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thanks, @paulofonseca for taking the initiative on this. We fully support the idea of using Web3 tools, and it’s even better that Huddle01 is built on Arbitrum. Using native tools shows our commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We’ve been in touch with the Huddle01 team for about a year now. We had integrated it into our product, Chora Club. Like any platform, there were some early issues. But the team was quick to fix bugs and very open to feedback. They added features based on our suggestions and worked to improve the platform. Because of this, we’re confident that if any issues come up while using it for DAO calls, the Huddle01 team will respond quickly and handle them well, as they handled the recent recording issue for one of the calls.
We also joined a few DAO calls, which were conducted using Huddle01 recently like the SOS calls and proposal discussions, and it worked smoothly for us on desktop. We haven’t tried the mobile app yet, so we can’t comment on that. A couple of small suggestions from our side after recent meetings:
We also wanted to ask how meeting links will be managed in the DAO. Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’.
And as @Sinkas said, we also think this shouldn’t go to snapshot voting just yet. It’s better to keep testing it in our regular calls for another month or two and let everyone get used to the platform. That way, we avoid forcing everyone to switch too early.
One small suggestion for the @ayushranjan & Huddle01 team: since more DAO calls are now using the platform, it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
We’re happy to support further testing of Huddle01 for DAO calls and are looking forward to seeing how it continues to improve.
Hey all!
I’m “officially” wrapping up this experiment.
We’ve tried it for a bit (almost 6 months at this point), we did a bunch of calls on Huddle, but the instability and the connection issues and the general unavailability of some to endure those hurdles, made it so that our calls organically reverted to Google Meet, instead of the Arbitrum run Huddle01.
Thanks for trying
To be honest, I didn't have any problems with Huddle01, but I understand that it is quite difficult to compete with a multi-billion dollar company in such complex products as video communication
instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency.
instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency.
I echo Arana's support and the general phasic approach. I do want to reiterate that a simple, yet valuable addition to this transition will be a formalization of pre / post meeting process to accommodate for the permanence of IPFS storage. Arana, Sinkas, and other meeting leaders make it a great habit to inform attendees that a meeting is starting and prepare their audio/video settings accordingly. I believe this is a small bit of added care which benefits the respect and privacy of attendees greatly, given that, though myself and many others aren't, a good number of community contributors are non-doxxed, etc...
This would simply include a brief one or two line intro as standard process to all calls as well as perhaps a short, time limited space at the end of the call by which those who wanted to contribute off record could add comments / ask questions, etc...
Perhaps this could even be a standard recommended process made by Huddle itself.
I've been on one call with the new Huddle meetings and it worked well. I live in New Zealand and most DAO calls are my 2-6am local time. I rely heavily on recordings, transcription, AI summaries.
Right now the Huddle solution isn't compatible with AI notetaking tools and isn't fulfilling the needs I have to participate effectively in the DAO in an async manner which is a critical design constraint for a Globally diverse and participatory DAO membership base.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thanks, @paulofonseca for taking the initiative on this. We fully support the idea of using Web3 tools, and it’s even better that Huddle01 is built on Arbitrum. Using native tools shows our commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thanks, @paulofonseca for taking the initiative on this. We fully support the idea of using Web3 tools, and it’s even better that Huddle01 is built on Arbitrum. Using native tools shows our commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We’ve been in touch with the Huddle01 team for about a year now. We had integrated it into our product, Chora Club. Like any platform, there were some early issues. But the team was quick to fix bugs and very open to feedback. They added features based on our suggestions and worked to improve the platform. Because of this, we’re confident that if any issues come up while using it for DAO calls, the Huddle01 team will respond quickly and handle them well, as they handled the recent recording issue for one of the calls.
We also joined a few DAO calls, which were conducted using Huddle01 recently like the SOS calls and proposal discussions, and it worked smoothly for us on desktop. We haven’t tried the mobile app yet, so we can’t comment on that. A couple of small suggestions from our side after recent meetings:
We also wanted to ask how meeting links will be managed in the DAO. Will a specific person be responsible for sending out or hosting the links, or will any contributor be able to schedule meetings on their own?
we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’.
And as @Sinkas said, we also think this shouldn’t go to snapshot voting just yet. It’s better to keep testing it in our regular calls for another month or two and let everyone get used to the platform. That way, we avoid forcing everyone to switch too early.
One small suggestion for the @ayushranjan & Huddle01 team: since more DAO calls are now using the platform, it would help if you could share a short guide or video showing how to use the platform. That could be posted on the forum to help both delegates and community members onboard easily before the calls.
We’re happy to support further testing of Huddle01 for DAO calls and are looking forward to seeing how it continues to improve.
Hey all!
I’m “officially” wrapping up this experiment.
We’ve tried it for a bit (almost 6 months at this point), we did a bunch of calls on Huddle, but the instability and the connection issues and the general unavailability of some to endure those hurdles, made it so that our calls organically reverted to Google Meet, instead of the Arbitrum run Huddle01.
I've been on one call with the new Huddle meetings and it worked well. I live in New Zealand and most DAO calls are my 2-6am local time. I rely heavily on recordings, transcription, AI summaries.
Right now the Huddle solution isn't compatible with AI notetaking tools and isn't fulfilling the needs I have to participate effectively in the DAO in an async manner which is a critical design constraint for a Globally diverse and participatory DAO membership base.
I'd like to hear from @ramitphi how these needs can be addressed?
Hey all!
I’m “officially” wrapping up this experiment.
We’ve tried it for a bit (almost 6 months at this point), we did a bunch of calls on Huddle, but the instability and the connection issues and the general unavailability of some to endure those hurdles, made it so that our calls organically reverted to Google Meet, instead of the Arbitrum run Huddle01.
I’ve cancelled the huddle01 business plan that I was paying for and we should just use other video conferencing platforms, and manage the recordings and the sharing of those recordings manually, as before.
Thank you all for your collaboration and openness to experiment.
We support adopting Huddle01 Meet as the default platform for all DAO video calls. Recordings will no longer stay on a delegate’s personal Google Drive; instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency. Choosing Huddle01 also strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem, as the team builds exclusively on Arbitrum.
The plan is free for the first six months, then only $50 per month. This is a negligible expense the Arbitrum Foundation can easily cover.
We support adopting Huddle01 Meet as the default platform for all DAO video calls. Recordings will no longer stay on a delegate’s personal Google Drive; instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency. Choosing Huddle01 also strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem, as the team builds exclusively on Arbitrum.
The plan is free for the first six months, then only $50 per month. This is a negligible expense the Arbitrum Foundation can easily cover.
Transitioning from Google Meet will require an adjustment period, so a well-publicized trial phase is essential. During this test window we should verify call stability (latency, audio/video quality), user-experience quirks (mobile log-ins, screen-share permissions), and edge-case bugs. Hosting a few open trial sessions before the first official meeting, paired with a fallback Google Meet link just in case, will let delegates familiarize themselves with wallet log-ins, token-gating, multi-streaming, and the multiple-host feature that prevents a single point of failure.
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
We also agree with Gauntlet’s suggestion that a volunteer working group such as the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat run Huddle01 for their office hours over the next few months and deliver structured feedback before the DAO commits to a full migration. Once those boxes are checked, Huddle01 can confidently become our day-to-day governance meeting hub.
From my experience using this product on Arbitrum calls, I have come to the following conclusions:
We like the idea, @paulofonseca, and see no harm in trying out Huddle01. If it doesn't work as well as expected, it can always be rolled back to Google Meet.
We honestly don't see any downside, with the exception of buggy calls, and we do agree that we should use apps on Arbitrum where feasible.
It was integrated with one of our startups (meetwith.xyz) and I didn't have issues with it but we got multiple reports of issues. We added other meeting options about 3 months ago, so people migrated to what they find familiar (zoom, hangouts, etc).
I see there were some specific potential issues with our implementation though:
It was integrated with one of our startups (meetwith.xyz) and I didn't have issues with it but we got multiple reports of issues. We added other meeting options about 3 months ago, so people migrated to what they find familiar (zoom, hangouts, etc).
I see there were some specific potential issues with our implementation though:
Huddle01 Meet integration in meetwith.xyz was an iFrame embed due to which it has some limitationto get access of user mic at browser level for some devices, also based on feedback from that time we have made changes to our platform and tried to make thing smooth for user during login.
So what Gauntlet is proposing here is the way forward IMO:
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Although we like the idea of using Arbitrum products — and generally web3 products where it makes sense — we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’. It would be more sensible to start using Huddle first, and, if it makes sense, have such a vote in the future.
Thank you @paulofonseca for doing the legwork and building this proposal. We should absolutely be using more Arbitrum-based tools, and this seems like a great place to integrate something from the ecosystem. Strongly in favor, with the caveat that I also think it would be key to have the kind of contingency planning @EzR3aL mentioned.
Overall, great proposal @paulofonseca. Having listened to your own explanation of the thought process behind it, prior testing, relatively cheap costs, I'm all for backing and using something that is actually built on top of Arbitrum as opposed to evil Google tech.
However, I think there are some pretty valid concerns that warrant further testing, mainly:
Overall, great proposal @paulofonseca. Having listened to your own explanation of the thought process behind it, prior testing, relatively cheap costs, I'm all for backing and using something that is actually built on top of Arbitrum as opposed to evil Google tech.
However, I think there are some pretty valid concerns that warrant further testing, mainly:
I suggest doing some sort of trial run or perhaps proposing a joint period where both Huddle and Meet are used simultaneously to ease people in. Not sure if it's possible, but that might be the best way to get this to pass without ruffling some feathers.
Thanks for the proposal Paulo.
Disclaimer: I just played around with Huddle a couple of minutes so maybe I haven't grasped its full potential.
Nevertheless here are some functionalities of Google Meet I like (for the ARDC in my case) and that should be matched by whatever solution we choose:
Thank you for putting this forward, Paulo.
While we haven’t encountered any major issues that would necessitate this change, we always welcome the opportunity to support an Arbitrum-native project.
Thank you for putting this forward, Paulo.
While we haven’t encountered any major issues that would necessitate this change, we always welcome the opportunity to support an Arbitrum-native project.
We share similar concerns and are therefore somewhat undecided on this proposal.
What would define the success of this test? Can we establish clear success criteria? It would be helpful to outline key benchmarks—specific outcomes we need to achieve during the trial—so that we can objectively assess whether to proceed with full adoption.
I'm excited about this decentralization move!
I like recordings will no longer depend on someone's personal account, they’ll be stored in a decentralized, public way, ensuring transparency and preventing any risk of them being deleted or lost.
I'm excited about this decentralization move!
I like recordings will no longer depend on someone's personal account, they’ll be stored in a decentralized, public way, ensuring transparency and preventing any risk of them being deleted or lost.
Of course, it’ll take time for everyone to get used to the new tool, especially those who are used to Google Meet and traditional platforms. Some might feel uneasy about switching, and we might face issues with availability or user experience.
That's why I believe testing is key. We need to make sure it's stable, with no performance or connectivity issues, and no hidden bugs...Maybe starting testing in DAO meetings would be a good start :)
I've been on one call with the new Huddle meetings and it worked well. I live in New Zealand and most DAO calls are my 2-6am local time. I rely heavily on recordings, transcription, AI summaries.
Right now the Huddle solution isn't compatible with AI notetaking tools and isn't fulfilling the needs I have to participate effectively in the DAO in an async manner which is a critical design constraint for a Globally diverse and participatory DAO membership base.
I'd like to hear from @ramitphi how these needs can be addressed?
Hey all!
I’m “officially” wrapping up this experiment.
We’ve tried it for a bit (almost 6 months at this point), we did a bunch of calls on Huddle, but the instability and the connection issues and the general unavailability of some to endure those hurdles, made it so that our calls organically reverted to Google Meet, instead of the Arbitrum run Huddle01.
I’ve cancelled the huddle01 business plan that I was paying for and we should just use other video conferencing platforms, and manage the recordings and the sharing of those recordings manually, as before.
Thank you all for your collaboration and openness to experiment.
We support adopting Huddle01 Meet as the default platform for all DAO video calls. Recordings will no longer stay on a delegate’s personal Google Drive; instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency. Choosing Huddle01 also strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem, as the team builds exclusively on Arbitrum.
The plan is free for the first six months, then only $50 per month. This is a negligible expense the Arbitrum Foundation can easily cover.
We support adopting Huddle01 Meet as the default platform for all DAO video calls. Recordings will no longer stay on a delegate’s personal Google Drive; instead, every session is automatically saved to IPFS, which guarantees permanence and transparency. Choosing Huddle01 also strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem, as the team builds exclusively on Arbitrum.
The plan is free for the first six months, then only $50 per month. This is a negligible expense the Arbitrum Foundation can easily cover.
Transitioning from Google Meet will require an adjustment period, so a well-publicized trial phase is essential. During this test window we should verify call stability (latency, audio/video quality), user-experience quirks (mobile log-ins, screen-share permissions), and edge-case bugs. Hosting a few open trial sessions before the first official meeting, paired with a fallback Google Meet link just in case, will let delegates familiarize themselves with wallet log-ins, token-gating, multi-streaming, and the multiple-host feature that prevents a single point of failure.
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
We also agree with Gauntlet’s suggestion that a volunteer working group such as the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat run Huddle01 for their office hours over the next few months and deliver structured feedback before the DAO commits to a full migration. Once those boxes are checked, Huddle01 can confidently become our day-to-day governance meeting hub.
From my experience using this product on Arbitrum calls, I have come to the following conclusions:
We like the idea, @paulofonseca, and see no harm in trying out Huddle01. If it doesn't work as well as expected, it can always be rolled back to Google Meet.
We honestly don't see any downside, with the exception of buggy calls, and we do agree that we should use apps on Arbitrum where feasible.
It was integrated with one of our startups (meetwith.xyz) and I didn't have issues with it but we got multiple reports of issues. We added other meeting options about 3 months ago, so people migrated to what they find familiar (zoom, hangouts, etc).
I see there were some specific potential issues with our implementation though:
It was integrated with one of our startups (meetwith.xyz) and I didn't have issues with it but we got multiple reports of issues. We added other meeting options about 3 months ago, so people migrated to what they find familiar (zoom, hangouts, etc).
I see there were some specific potential issues with our implementation though:
Huddle01 Meet integration in meetwith.xyz was an iFrame embed due to which it has some limitationto get access of user mic at browser level for some devices, also based on feedback from that time we have made changes to our platform and tried to make thing smooth for user during login.
So what Gauntlet is proposing here is the way forward IMO:
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Although we like the idea of using Arbitrum products — and generally web3 products where it makes sense — we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’. It would be more sensible to start using Huddle first, and, if it makes sense, have such a vote in the future.
Thank you @paulofonseca for doing the legwork and building this proposal. We should absolutely be using more Arbitrum-based tools, and this seems like a great place to integrate something from the ecosystem. Strongly in favor, with the caveat that I also think it would be key to have the kind of contingency planning @EzR3aL mentioned.
Overall, great proposal @paulofonseca. Having listened to your own explanation of the thought process behind it, prior testing, relatively cheap costs, I'm all for backing and using something that is actually built on top of Arbitrum as opposed to evil Google tech.
However, I think there are some pretty valid concerns that warrant further testing, mainly:
Overall, great proposal @paulofonseca. Having listened to your own explanation of the thought process behind it, prior testing, relatively cheap costs, I'm all for backing and using something that is actually built on top of Arbitrum as opposed to evil Google tech.
However, I think there are some pretty valid concerns that warrant further testing, mainly:
I suggest doing some sort of trial run or perhaps proposing a joint period where both Huddle and Meet are used simultaneously to ease people in. Not sure if it's possible, but that might be the best way to get this to pass without ruffling some feathers.
Thanks for the proposal Paulo.
Disclaimer: I just played around with Huddle a couple of minutes so maybe I haven't grasped its full potential.
Nevertheless here are some functionalities of Google Meet I like (for the ARDC in my case) and that should be matched by whatever solution we choose:
Thank you for putting this forward, Paulo.
While we haven’t encountered any major issues that would necessitate this change, we always welcome the opportunity to support an Arbitrum-native project.
Thank you for putting this forward, Paulo.
While we haven’t encountered any major issues that would necessitate this change, we always welcome the opportunity to support an Arbitrum-native project.
We share similar concerns and are therefore somewhat undecided on this proposal.
What would define the success of this test? Can we establish clear success criteria? It would be helpful to outline key benchmarks—specific outcomes we need to achieve during the trial—so that we can objectively assess whether to proceed with full adoption.
I'm excited about this decentralization move!
I like recordings will no longer depend on someone's personal account, they’ll be stored in a decentralized, public way, ensuring transparency and preventing any risk of them being deleted or lost.
I'm excited about this decentralization move!
I like recordings will no longer depend on someone's personal account, they’ll be stored in a decentralized, public way, ensuring transparency and preventing any risk of them being deleted or lost.
Of course, it’ll take time for everyone to get used to the new tool, especially those who are used to Google Meet and traditional platforms. Some might feel uneasy about switching, and we might face issues with availability or user experience.
That's why I believe testing is key. We need to make sure it's stable, with no performance or connectivity issues, and no hidden bugs...Maybe starting testing in DAO meetings would be a good start :)
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Although we like the idea of using Arbitrum products — and generally web3 products where it makes sense — we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’. It would be more sensible to start using Huddle first, and, if it makes sense, have such a vote in the future.
This proposal could serve as a starting point to discuss a closer relationship between Huddle and the DAO. If we are to utilize Huddle and promote it as a DAO, then Huddle should also promote Arbitrum as a suitable platform for building, where builder support is available. Hopefully, this relationship turns into a success story we can leverage, and a field to experiment with more collaboration between the DAO and Arbitrum builders.
What we could do now is help build awareness about the existence of these tools and let delegates decide whether or not it makes sense to use them. Proposals, or rather discussion starters, like this should serve as a gentle nudge for people to try something new, which we recognise can be difficult due to the force of habit and familiarity.
As L2BEAT, we have already started using Huddle for the calls we recently set up, such as the SOS discussions. Unless any significant issues arise, we are open to continuing to use Huddle for DAO-related calls. We only encountered an issue once with a recording that randomly stopped, but after contacting the Huddle team, they appear to have resolved the issue
The idea of having recordings automatically stored in IPFS is also very appealing, as it ensures that the calls remain accessible and do not depend on any single entity’s or individual’s Google account remaining active.
With that in mind, we suggest continuing to experiment with using Huddle without any commitment to make it the standard tool, to see if there are any issues with people not being able to join calls with the same ease. If everything is working correctly, we can continue using it and encourage others to use it as well, without, however, forcing anyone to use it.
Disclaimer: The above is not an endorsement of Huddle as a software, but rather an attempt at practically supporting builders on Arbitrum.
Thanks for the proposal Paulo.
Disclaimer: I just played around with Huddle a couple of minutes so maybe I haven't grasped its full potential.
Nevertheless here are some functionalities of Google Meet I like (for the ARDC in my case) and that should be matched by whatever solution we choose:
On the rest I am torn, I believe we should try to use apps on Arbitrum on the other side e.g., within the ARDC as we are dealing with Service Providers it might create additional friction (or one could argue we expand the customer base for Huddle)
I am in favor of experimentation here. Much of the supportive commentary to this point has been strong, so without rehashing I broadly agree with many of the delegates above.
An operational note not yet referenced:
I am in favor of experimentation here. Much of the supportive commentary to this point has been strong, so without rehashing I broadly agree with many of the delegates above.
An operational note not yet referenced:
-- Given IPFS storage, we need to be cognizant of the limited ability to remove recordings from publication. Because of this, we should take steps such as structuring a standardized meeting kick-off process inclusive of notes such as "for those who don't want to be recorded, please turn your cameras off now" -- this is something Sinkas does regularly on the current meetings, and in an IPFS structure I'd say should be standard policy. There are likely other privacy and best practice considerations which would warrant a short discussion. Nothing critically blocking, but simply worth thought.
Then there are more standard meeting setup processes which would address some of the concerns of friction, barrier to entry, risk of performance. Simply:
With these two points added, and consideration for meeting recording processes, I see benefits in testing this then scaling up if it is well received.
Thanks to @paulofonseca for testing and understanding this product.
I believe that as an Arbitrum community we should support products created in our ecosystem. Especially if it is high-quality and useful software for our needs. I do not see a single downside: a cheap subscription that develops the project and, accordingly, an influx of users to Arbitrum
Thanks to @paulofonseca for testing and understanding this product.
I believe that as an Arbitrum community we should support products created in our ecosystem. Especially if it is high-quality and useful software for our needs. I do not see a single downside: a cheap subscription that develops the project and, accordingly, an influx of users to Arbitrum
Even if it turns out that everyone does not like the product, the team quickly works on solutions and we can always return to Google Meet
In principle the prospect of a more decentralized alternative than anything google makes me excited, but in practice I want to reserve judgement until I've had a chance to run it through its paces.
I'm especially worried that it might be the kind of application that requires downloading custom components and apps, such as the iPhone app it was mentioned in the thread that someone had to use. It's a sad reality that we now have to be hyper-aware of potential attack-vectors into our local systems in the crypto space now, so I'm hoping we won't run into too many requirements like that.
This is the first test we already ran:
We should do more test meetings with more attendees in more geographies and on more devices.
gm, great initiative to support Arbitrum builders. The tool also seems to have very comprehensive features (attendees list, token gating, ecc) that can be useful.
Absolutely in favor.
gm, great initiative to support Arbitrum builders. The tool also seems to have very comprehensive features (attendees list, token gating, ecc) that can be useful.
Absolutely in favor.
Only alarming flag is here. Daniel, when did you test it?
We should run a few tests before moving forward.
Huddle01 provides a .csv with all the attendees for every meeting, and if attendees login with their wallet, it would be even simpler for @SEEDGov to match each delegate in the DIP with the list of attendees. Here is an example of the .csv file from the ETH Bucharest meeting we did.
It is expected that some will have issues trying to attend those meetings. How to handle that?
is the app available in all jurisdictions on App and GooglePlay?
This is a new tool for those who will present things at those meetings. It would be helpful to engage with them before the actual call.
Thanks, @paulofonseca, for proactively proposing a solution to an ongoing problem.
We see the value in Arbitrum DAO using tools built on Arbitrum and fully support such initiatives. However, as mentioned by other delegates, our main concern is accessibility. Because of its novelty, we expect Huddle01 to present a higher barrier to entry compared to Google Meet, which is a widely adopted tool. We're in favour of testing the solution and take it from there.
Thanks Paulo for taking the initiative on this matter. Fully agree we should lead by example and be on the forefront of testing and using decentralized tools built on our own ecosystem.
Regarding the submission for voting, we agree if the Foundation will be covering the costs the policy can be ratified by a Snapshot vote.
Using onchain solutions is an admirable goal for the DAO to aspire to, and we are all for supporting Arbitrum builders. However, the quality issues noted above and the added friction this adds to an already difficult coordination are reasonable concerns.
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
I think its a great initiative going on-chain and we should at least give it a try a few times to see if there are any problems or not so we can seamlessly move away from google meets to huddle.
I would suggest that we create or allow the calls to have both options available for a few weeks (2-4) to be sure everything is working as usual and then switch completely. That way we won't have any problems and thats the usual way by migrating from one to another tool.
Hello Paulo, thanks for the effort!
I appreciate the idea of using tools that are Arbitrum-related, as this boosts alignment. As I'm not that familiar with the app, I have a few questions regarding the following point:
Hello Paulo, thanks for the effort!
I appreciate the idea of using tools that are Arbitrum-related, as this boosts alignment. As I'm not that familiar with the app, I have a few questions regarding the following point:
Thanks!
Thanks to @paulofonseca for bringing this proposal, as it encompasses the "eat your own dog food" mindset that each organization should have and aims to solve the common problems regarding call scheduling. Nonetheless, I believe there needs to be a larger testing session, as the DAO, given its decentralized and distributed traits, has in its meetings the main "public square forum" for communicating proposals and breaking down ideas with their authors.
Considering the relevance of this change, I propose a there should be a larger testing period frame, in which there should be an evaluation of the two apps (the tried and true Google Meet, and the new Huddle alternative) at least for a month to compare and evaluate if such a change is necessary and beneficial. In this period, there should be alternate calls using the two alternatives for this evaluation.
as I mentioned here, we already did a call using this Huddle01 Meet business account exactly one week ago, and the only non-positive feedback was from @krst because he was forced to download the native mobile app to be able to join the call from an iPhone instead of just being able to join the call from the mobile browser. I relayed that feedback to the Huddle01 team and @ayushranjan and they will fix that soon or maybe already fixed it. everything else went great I believe. we had 10 different people in that call, we can do a bigger test for a call with more people in the next few weeks.
that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can’t enter, or can’t register etc)
haven't gone into the details. There is indeed a merit in being onchain as a dao by also using onchain tools, and I appreciate this. My question for @paulofonseca is: have you considered the tradeoff in adding more friction in a system, the governace calls, that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can't enter, or can't register etc)? Thinking out loud here more than anything, it could still be worth the effort.
Thanks for taking the time to draft this proposal, @paulofonseca.
I really like the idea of the DAO using products built on Arbitrum and aligning ourselves to support these kinds of projects. If we don't use them, we're not demonstrating the commitment we should.
Thanks for taking the time to draft this proposal, @paulofonseca.
I really like the idea of the DAO using products built on Arbitrum and aligning ourselves to support these kinds of projects. If we don't use them, we're not demonstrating the commitment we should.
Although I think this might cause some initial friction for new members, I'm in favor of conducting a trial and then evaluating whether we want to continue.
I suggest we create a clear onboarding plan and FAQ so delegates don’t struggle to use it.
Overall, I see no reason not to give Huddle01 a try, especially considering Google Meet can remain as a fallback plan if necessary. Costs are already covered initially and appear negligible if we decide to continue using it beyond the trial period.
This is great @paulofonseca - thanks for taking the initiative on this. i've used huddle in the past, and besides some minor login/connection issues - it wasn't the worst experience.
We used Huddle01 for a while (it was integrated with Meetwith.xyz, our scheduling solution) and had to largely move away from it due to frequent issues (mic/camera compatibility, people struggling to log-in)....
I like the idea of playing with it.
We don't need it to be perfect - we need to start using what we already have. Even if the current tools aren't ideal, real usage will only make it better.
I like the idea of playing with it.
We don't need it to be perfect - we need to start using what we already have. Even if the current tools aren't ideal, real usage will only make it better.
I believe in using Arb tech now and improving it through actual user testing and feedback. Let's implement what we have, collect real-time user data, and iterate quickly. This approach builds better tools and strengthens our ecosystem simultaneously.
good points @Chris_Areta I've reworked the proposal a little bit. looking at the next calls on the calendar I think we can do a test for 2 weeks only and cover most of the different recurring calls we do.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Although we like the idea of using Arbitrum products — and generally web3 products where it makes sense — we see little reason for the proposal to go through the governance process at this time, even if it’s just to get ‘ratified’. It would be more sensible to start using Huddle first, and, if it makes sense, have such a vote in the future.
This proposal could serve as a starting point to discuss a closer relationship between Huddle and the DAO. If we are to utilize Huddle and promote it as a DAO, then Huddle should also promote Arbitrum as a suitable platform for building, where builder support is available. Hopefully, this relationship turns into a success story we can leverage, and a field to experiment with more collaboration between the DAO and Arbitrum builders.
What we could do now is help build awareness about the existence of these tools and let delegates decide whether or not it makes sense to use them. Proposals, or rather discussion starters, like this should serve as a gentle nudge for people to try something new, which we recognise can be difficult due to the force of habit and familiarity.
As L2BEAT, we have already started using Huddle for the calls we recently set up, such as the SOS discussions. Unless any significant issues arise, we are open to continuing to use Huddle for DAO-related calls. We only encountered an issue once with a recording that randomly stopped, but after contacting the Huddle team, they appear to have resolved the issue
The idea of having recordings automatically stored in IPFS is also very appealing, as it ensures that the calls remain accessible and do not depend on any single entity’s or individual’s Google account remaining active.
With that in mind, we suggest continuing to experiment with using Huddle without any commitment to make it the standard tool, to see if there are any issues with people not being able to join calls with the same ease. If everything is working correctly, we can continue using it and encourage others to use it as well, without, however, forcing anyone to use it.
Disclaimer: The above is not an endorsement of Huddle as a software, but rather an attempt at practically supporting builders on Arbitrum.
Thanks for the proposal Paulo.
Disclaimer: I just played around with Huddle a couple of minutes so maybe I haven't grasped its full potential.
Nevertheless here are some functionalities of Google Meet I like (for the ARDC in my case) and that should be matched by whatever solution we choose:
On the rest I am torn, I believe we should try to use apps on Arbitrum on the other side e.g., within the ARDC as we are dealing with Service Providers it might create additional friction (or one could argue we expand the customer base for Huddle)
I am in favor of experimentation here. Much of the supportive commentary to this point has been strong, so without rehashing I broadly agree with many of the delegates above.
An operational note not yet referenced:
I am in favor of experimentation here. Much of the supportive commentary to this point has been strong, so without rehashing I broadly agree with many of the delegates above.
An operational note not yet referenced:
-- Given IPFS storage, we need to be cognizant of the limited ability to remove recordings from publication. Because of this, we should take steps such as structuring a standardized meeting kick-off process inclusive of notes such as "for those who don't want to be recorded, please turn your cameras off now" -- this is something Sinkas does regularly on the current meetings, and in an IPFS structure I'd say should be standard policy. There are likely other privacy and best practice considerations which would warrant a short discussion. Nothing critically blocking, but simply worth thought.
Then there are more standard meeting setup processes which would address some of the concerns of friction, barrier to entry, risk of performance. Simply:
With these two points added, and consideration for meeting recording processes, I see benefits in testing this then scaling up if it is well received.
Thanks to @paulofonseca for testing and understanding this product.
I believe that as an Arbitrum community we should support products created in our ecosystem. Especially if it is high-quality and useful software for our needs. I do not see a single downside: a cheap subscription that develops the project and, accordingly, an influx of users to Arbitrum
Thanks to @paulofonseca for testing and understanding this product.
I believe that as an Arbitrum community we should support products created in our ecosystem. Especially if it is high-quality and useful software for our needs. I do not see a single downside: a cheap subscription that develops the project and, accordingly, an influx of users to Arbitrum
Even if it turns out that everyone does not like the product, the team quickly works on solutions and we can always return to Google Meet
In principle the prospect of a more decentralized alternative than anything google makes me excited, but in practice I want to reserve judgement until I've had a chance to run it through its paces.
I'm especially worried that it might be the kind of application that requires downloading custom components and apps, such as the iPhone app it was mentioned in the thread that someone had to use. It's a sad reality that we now have to be hyper-aware of potential attack-vectors into our local systems in the crypto space now, so I'm hoping we won't run into too many requirements like that.
This is the first test we already ran:
We should do more test meetings with more attendees in more geographies and on more devices.
gm, great initiative to support Arbitrum builders. The tool also seems to have very comprehensive features (attendees list, token gating, ecc) that can be useful.
Absolutely in favor.
gm, great initiative to support Arbitrum builders. The tool also seems to have very comprehensive features (attendees list, token gating, ecc) that can be useful.
Absolutely in favor.
Only alarming flag is here. Daniel, when did you test it?
We should run a few tests before moving forward.
Huddle01 provides a .csv with all the attendees for every meeting, and if attendees login with their wallet, it would be even simpler for @SEEDGov to match each delegate in the DIP with the list of attendees. Here is an example of the .csv file from the ETH Bucharest meeting we did.
It is expected that some will have issues trying to attend those meetings. How to handle that?
is the app available in all jurisdictions on App and GooglePlay?
This is a new tool for those who will present things at those meetings. It would be helpful to engage with them before the actual call.
Thanks, @paulofonseca, for proactively proposing a solution to an ongoing problem.
We see the value in Arbitrum DAO using tools built on Arbitrum and fully support such initiatives. However, as mentioned by other delegates, our main concern is accessibility. Because of its novelty, we expect Huddle01 to present a higher barrier to entry compared to Google Meet, which is a widely adopted tool. We're in favour of testing the solution and take it from there.
Thanks Paulo for taking the initiative on this matter. Fully agree we should lead by example and be on the forefront of testing and using decentralized tools built on our own ecosystem.
Regarding the submission for voting, we agree if the Foundation will be covering the costs the policy can be ratified by a Snapshot vote.
Using onchain solutions is an admirable goal for the DAO to aspire to, and we are all for supporting Arbitrum builders. However, the quality issues noted above and the added friction this adds to an already difficult coordination are reasonable concerns.
Can a volunteer working group or entity trial-run this for a few months without a proposal? For example, perhaps the ARDC, Entropy, or L2Beat could volunteer to use this for their office hours and provide feedback before proceeding with a full migration (If they are open to the idea).
I think its a great initiative going on-chain and we should at least give it a try a few times to see if there are any problems or not so we can seamlessly move away from google meets to huddle.
I would suggest that we create or allow the calls to have both options available for a few weeks (2-4) to be sure everything is working as usual and then switch completely. That way we won't have any problems and thats the usual way by migrating from one to another tool.
Hello Paulo, thanks for the effort!
I appreciate the idea of using tools that are Arbitrum-related, as this boosts alignment. As I'm not that familiar with the app, I have a few questions regarding the following point:
Hello Paulo, thanks for the effort!
I appreciate the idea of using tools that are Arbitrum-related, as this boosts alignment. As I'm not that familiar with the app, I have a few questions regarding the following point:
Thanks!
Thanks to @paulofonseca for bringing this proposal, as it encompasses the "eat your own dog food" mindset that each organization should have and aims to solve the common problems regarding call scheduling. Nonetheless, I believe there needs to be a larger testing session, as the DAO, given its decentralized and distributed traits, has in its meetings the main "public square forum" for communicating proposals and breaking down ideas with their authors.
Considering the relevance of this change, I propose a there should be a larger testing period frame, in which there should be an evaluation of the two apps (the tried and true Google Meet, and the new Huddle alternative) at least for a month to compare and evaluate if such a change is necessary and beneficial. In this period, there should be alternate calls using the two alternatives for this evaluation.
as I mentioned here, we already did a call using this Huddle01 Meet business account exactly one week ago, and the only non-positive feedback was from @krst because he was forced to download the native mobile app to be able to join the call from an iPhone instead of just being able to join the call from the mobile browser. I relayed that feedback to the Huddle01 team and @ayushranjan and they will fix that soon or maybe already fixed it. everything else went great I believe. we had 10 different people in that call, we can do a bigger test for a call with more people in the next few weeks.
that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can’t enter, or can’t register etc)
haven't gone into the details. There is indeed a merit in being onchain as a dao by also using onchain tools, and I appreciate this. My question for @paulofonseca is: have you considered the tradeoff in adding more friction in a system, the governace calls, that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can't enter, or can't register etc)? Thinking out loud here more than anything, it could still be worth the effort.
Thanks for taking the time to draft this proposal, @paulofonseca.
I really like the idea of the DAO using products built on Arbitrum and aligning ourselves to support these kinds of projects. If we don't use them, we're not demonstrating the commitment we should.
Thanks for taking the time to draft this proposal, @paulofonseca.
I really like the idea of the DAO using products built on Arbitrum and aligning ourselves to support these kinds of projects. If we don't use them, we're not demonstrating the commitment we should.
Although I think this might cause some initial friction for new members, I'm in favor of conducting a trial and then evaluating whether we want to continue.
I suggest we create a clear onboarding plan and FAQ so delegates don’t struggle to use it.
Overall, I see no reason not to give Huddle01 a try, especially considering Google Meet can remain as a fallback plan if necessary. Costs are already covered initially and appear negligible if we decide to continue using it beyond the trial period.
This is great @paulofonseca - thanks for taking the initiative on this. i've used huddle in the past, and besides some minor login/connection issues - it wasn't the worst experience.
We used Huddle01 for a while (it was integrated with Meetwith.xyz, our scheduling solution) and had to largely move away from it due to frequent issues (mic/camera compatibility, people struggling to log-in)....
I like the idea of playing with it.
We don't need it to be perfect - we need to start using what we already have. Even if the current tools aren't ideal, real usage will only make it better.
I like the idea of playing with it.
We don't need it to be perfect - we need to start using what we already have. Even if the current tools aren't ideal, real usage will only make it better.
I believe in using Arb tech now and improving it through actual user testing and feedback. Let's implement what we have, collect real-time user data, and iterate quickly. This approach builds better tools and strengthens our ecosystem simultaneously.
good points @Chris_Areta I've reworked the proposal a little bit. looking at the next calls on the calendar I think we can do a test for 2 weeks only and cover most of the different recurring calls we do.
Thanks to @paulofonseca for bringing this proposal, as it encompasses the "eat your own dog food" mindset that each organization should have and aims to solve the common problems regarding call scheduling. Nonetheless, I believe there needs to be a larger testing session, as the DAO, given its decentralized and distributed traits, has in its meetings the main "public square forum" for communicating proposals and breaking down ideas with their authors.
Considering the relevance of this change, I propose a there should be a larger testing period frame, in which there should be an evaluation of the two apps (the tried and true Google Meet, and the new Huddle alternative) at least for a month to compare and evaluate if such a change is necessary and beneficial. In this period, there should be alternate calls using the two alternatives for this evaluation.
While the test recording posted seems clear and @paulofonseca has personally tested it, other delegates including @danielo have presented their experiences with the app, stating that they had to abandon its usage due to the issues that added friction to the process of just attending a meeting, that should be as seamless as possible. As with every app that needs to be implemented into a multitude of users, testing thoroughly is really important, as what is acceptable/good/usable for one cannot be generally translated to others.
that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can’t enter, or can’t register etc)
yeah that’s exactly the advantage of this setup. with huddle01 meet any email or wallet address can be a call host. not just the original google account that created the google meet link that might happen to not come to the call on time to let everybody in or record the call. with this setup also any host can record and it goes straight to IPFS
This is great @paulofonseca - thanks for taking the initiative on this. i've used huddle in the past, and besides some minor login/connection issues - it wasn't the worst experience.
Just to gain more clarity around the proposed timelines here. When does the DAO actually get to test the app for 1 month? From the proposed timelines here it seems that would come after the temp-check vote. Is this correct?
If this is correct, then it makes sense for the temp-check vote to simply approve the 1 month test, then an on-chain vote afterwards to ratify the proposed policy above.
good points @Chris_Areta I've reworked the proposal a little bit. looking at the next calls on the calendar I think we can do a test for 2 weeks only and cover most of the different recurring calls we do.
So here is the revised proposal timeline:
Also, I think we can just ratify this with an offchain vote, if the @Arbitrum Foundation would pay this subscription (like they've done before for 10x this amount) so we wouldn't need to go to an onchain vote and spend funds from the DAOs treasury.
Thanks to @paulofonseca for bringing this proposal, as it encompasses the "eat your own dog food" mindset that each organization should have and aims to solve the common problems regarding call scheduling. Nonetheless, I believe there needs to be a larger testing session, as the DAO, given its decentralized and distributed traits, has in its meetings the main "public square forum" for communicating proposals and breaking down ideas with their authors.
Considering the relevance of this change, I propose a there should be a larger testing period frame, in which there should be an evaluation of the two apps (the tried and true Google Meet, and the new Huddle alternative) at least for a month to compare and evaluate if such a change is necessary and beneficial. In this period, there should be alternate calls using the two alternatives for this evaluation.
While the test recording posted seems clear and @paulofonseca has personally tested it, other delegates including @danielo have presented their experiences with the app, stating that they had to abandon its usage due to the issues that added friction to the process of just attending a meeting, that should be as seamless as possible. As with every app that needs to be implemented into a multitude of users, testing thoroughly is really important, as what is acceptable/good/usable for one cannot be generally translated to others.
that are already somehow complex for people to setup and manage (we have plenty of calls in which people can’t enter, or can’t register etc)
yeah that’s exactly the advantage of this setup. with huddle01 meet any email or wallet address can be a call host. not just the original google account that created the google meet link that might happen to not come to the call on time to let everybody in or record the call. with this setup also any host can record and it goes straight to IPFS
This is great @paulofonseca - thanks for taking the initiative on this. i've used huddle in the past, and besides some minor login/connection issues - it wasn't the worst experience.
Just to gain more clarity around the proposed timelines here. When does the DAO actually get to test the app for 1 month? From the proposed timelines here it seems that would come after the temp-check vote. Is this correct?
If this is correct, then it makes sense for the temp-check vote to simply approve the 1 month test, then an on-chain vote afterwards to ratify the proposed policy above.
good points @Chris_Areta I've reworked the proposal a little bit. looking at the next calls on the calendar I think we can do a test for 2 weeks only and cover most of the different recurring calls we do.
So here is the revised proposal timeline:
Also, I think we can just ratify this with an offchain vote, if the @Arbitrum Foundation would pay this subscription (like they've done before for 10x this amount) so we wouldn't need to go to an onchain vote and spend funds from the DAOs treasury.