Thanks for your reply.

I struggle to see how this chat is "owned" by the DAO. The DAO did not vote to create it in the first place and there is nothing in the constitution that would suggest that the DAO owns it either. Rather, its an informal group chat that was created by Paulo, who then made a handful of other members, admins. Also, Paulo said it should* be owned, not that it is currently owned by the DAO. :D

Therefore, IMO, a rough sentiment check on the forum or TG chat, would suffice. It doesn’t need to go to Snapshot and require the attention of 1000s of delegates to vote on.

Thanks for your reply.

I struggle to see how this chat is "owned" by the DAO. The DAO did not vote to create it in the first place and there is nothing in the constitution that would suggest that the DAO owns it either. Rather, its an informal group chat that was created by Paulo, who then made a handful of other members, admins. Also, Paulo said it should* be owned, not that it is currently owned by the DAO. :D

Therefore, IMO, a rough sentiment check on the forum or TG chat, would suffice. It doesn’t need to go to Snapshot and require the attention of 1000s of delegates to vote on.

In Coordination with Paulo and following a recommendation from the AF, we have agreed to run a poll here to approve the use of TogetherCrew in the telegram chat as per the proposal above.

Should we enable TogetherCrew functionality (summaries, Q&A, etc) in the delegest Telegram chat?

[poll type=regular results=always public=true chartType=bar]

• yes
• no [/poll]

If this proposal passes and you want to opt out, please DM me in telegram and we'll add you to the Apps blacklist

For the 171 person TG group (at this point in time) I don't feel I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that chat, so for that reason I'm voting yes.

It is however my preference that the TG-derived data is only accessible to TG delegates participating in the group, to prevent the service from becoming a way for "outsiders" to monitor and easily derive data of delegates that they would otherwise not be privvy to.

This vote is made under the assumption that delegates participating in the TG, being essentially the source of the private data that is to be monetized, are themselves exempt from the monetization scheme. If that's not the case my vote is instead "No".

Indeed the approach is for the summaries, Q&A, etc to only be available to those already in the TG group. So only those who already have access to the data can use the functionality.

The data will not be monetised. We do not sell the data to anyone. The service offered is summarisation and search, and the plan is to make it free in the telegeram chat.

Note the above does not make us sustainable. There are costs for infra, staff, etc etc. So we'll need a path for sustainability. The plan is to develop in the future (pending adoption of the basic functionality and further user research) some sort of premium functionality and have power users pay for that or alternatively request for the DAO to pay and make the service sustainable. The premium functionality will, in either case, NOT include giving access to unauthorised people.

The Foundation manages the TogetherCrew account so they can administer the settings for access.

In Coordination with Paulo and following a recommendation from the AF, we have agreed to run a poll here to approve the use of TogetherCrew in the telegram chat as per the proposal above.

Should we enable TogetherCrew functionality (summaries, Q&A, etc) in the delegest Telegram chat?

[poll type=regular results=always public=true chartType=bar]

• yes
• no [/poll]

If this proposal passes and you want to opt out, please DM me in telegram and we'll add you to the Apps blacklist

For the 171 person TG group (at this point in time) I don't feel I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that chat, so for that reason I'm voting yes.

It is however my preference that the TG-derived data is only accessible to TG delegates participating in the group, to prevent the service from becoming a way for "outsiders" to monitor and easily derive data of delegates that they would otherwise not be privvy to.

This vote is made under the assumption that delegates participating in the TG, being essentially the source of the private data that is to be monetized, are themselves exempt from the monetization scheme. If that's not the case my vote is instead "No".

Indeed the approach is for the summaries, Q&A, etc to only be available to those already in the TG group. So only those who already have access to the data can use the functionality.

The data will not be monetised. We do not sell the data to anyone. The service offered is summarisation and search, and the plan is to make it free in the telegeram chat.

Note the above does not make us sustainable. There are costs for infra, staff, etc etc. So we'll need a path for sustainability. The plan is to develop in the future (pending adoption of the basic functionality and further user research) some sort of premium functionality and have power users pay for that or alternatively request for the DAO to pay and make the service sustainable. The premium functionality will, in either case, NOT include giving access to unauthorised people.

The Foundation manages the TogetherCrew account so they can administer the settings for access.

Thank you @danielo for the proposal Here's my two cents: I sometimes find it challenging to keep up with Telegram chats, especially due to time zone differences. While this isn’t a major problem (I can simply export chats and analyze them with an AI bot or follow discussions on the forum and accept that I might miss some points) I believe this tool could significantly ease daily participation and help ensure everyone stays updated, especially since it also integrates information with the forum.

From a UX perspective the tool seems to be very beneficial, since access is limited to those already in the group, it doesn’t change who can see the information. As I mentioned, it would be particularly helpful for those in different time zones or with too much spam on Telegram. Since participants can opt out if they want there’s very little downside for current members.

The option to opt out is crucial, if the most active Telegram contributors choose to opt out the tool’s value would diminishes significantly. Making sure that these members feel comfortable and included is key.

Despite some delegates suggesting the proposal shouldn’t go to snapshot (and while I’m aware there are formal criteria for what should be put to a vote) I believe achieving consensus is important. A snapshot vote would increase visibility and allow more people to weigh in, which is especially relevant given the need for transparency around data handling.

My suggestion is to run a trial for a few months. I feel the most active Telegram contributors and potential bot users would be different people: those who need the bot aren’t typically the ones active in chat, and vice versa. After a few months, we could assess usage and whether active participants feel their communication has been negatively affected (addressing concerns like @KlausBrave s). The goal should be to keep the Telegram chat as it is, only integrating tools if they help without changing group dynamics. If that changes, the tool should be removed.

One concern I have relates to public versus private queries. Most users will likely prefer private queries, and if this becomes a premium feature, usage could drop and create unnecessary gaps between users.

Overall, I support giving this a try with clear evaluation criteria and a focus on preserving group dynamics.

Hey Klaus,

For context, the Telegram chat is not quite private. Anyone using 3rm could be capturing that data already (non consentually but anyhow...)

And also

Note the data will only be used by those in the chat. So it's not being made any less private than it already is.

At the moment we have 3 sources of information:

• Forum
• Telegram (it is not necessary to use the DAO chat, which has so many problems with access)
• Calls

1. We discussed that it is necessary to fulfill requests from the owners of the information, but unfortunately there were no requests, although the offer has existed for 16 days
2. There is no information whether this AI will be able to collect data from calls that provide more prompt information

We agree a summary tool could help digest info from the Delegate TG group, which at times can feel overwhelming. Ideally bot requests are sent to the asker in a DM not to populate even more the group with bot questions and answers.

Regarding privacy, we agree the bot to access the same information as the rest of the group members, with any potential delegate deciding to opt out having the right to do so.

As the TG group is not currently owned by the DAO, we don't think this needs to go for a snapshot vote.

I am largely neutral on whether a bot is actually necessary or not. I’d also imagine if one wanted to get caught up they could export the text and parse it in an AI product separately.

That said, I don’t agree with most of the privacy concern arguments here. I echo several others in saying that the idea that broadcasting to 200+ people is a bit silly to consider private in any context (with or without a bot).

However, I do think this resurfaces a trend amongst some recent integration requests (Together and Huddle01) regarding privacy at large. It seems we as a community have no concrete definition or consensus on matters of expected privacy or lack thereof.

I would call for a broader discussion on what privacy really means to us as a DAO. Personally, in the context of a delegate channel, (beyond being limited in privacy already) I’m not sure that walled garden chats are necessarily beneficial. And, who is this private from exactly? If effectively all 200 individuals who even tangentially engage with Arbitrum are already there, then I can’t really imagine who this comfort notion of “privacy” is actually providing us separation from? (Other protocols? Search engine logs from posting on the forum? – genuinely curious).

In the case of recorded meetings, I’ve said before, but Sinkas does a great job to announce before records start to allow participants to prepare accordingly. This is a matter of procedural privacy which does make sense to me.

But ultimately, we regularly discuss privacy without ever having had a conversation of the core ideas therein: what is our standard of privacy? who are we maintaining privacy from? when should things not be private? what are our processes to uphold the privacy standards we eventually land on? etc…

Thank you @danielo for the proposal Here's my two cents: I sometimes find it challenging to keep up with Telegram chats, especially due to time zone differences. While this isn’t a major problem (I can simply export chats and analyze them with an AI bot or follow discussions on the forum and accept that I might miss some points) I believe this tool could significantly ease daily participation and help ensure everyone stays updated, especially since it also integrates information with the forum.

From a UX perspective the tool seems to be very beneficial, since access is limited to those already in the group, it doesn’t change who can see the information. As I mentioned, it would be particularly helpful for those in different time zones or with too much spam on Telegram. Since participants can opt out if they want there’s very little downside for current members.

The option to opt out is crucial, if the most active Telegram contributors choose to opt out the tool’s value would diminishes significantly. Making sure that these members feel comfortable and included is key.

Despite some delegates suggesting the proposal shouldn’t go to snapshot (and while I’m aware there are formal criteria for what should be put to a vote) I believe achieving consensus is important. A snapshot vote would increase visibility and allow more people to weigh in, which is especially relevant given the need for transparency around data handling.

My suggestion is to run a trial for a few months. I feel the most active Telegram contributors and potential bot users would be different people: those who need the bot aren’t typically the ones active in chat, and vice versa. After a few months, we could assess usage and whether active participants feel their communication has been negatively affected (addressing concerns like @KlausBrave s). The goal should be to keep the Telegram chat as it is, only integrating tools if they help without changing group dynamics. If that changes, the tool should be removed.

One concern I have relates to public versus private queries. Most users will likely prefer private queries, and if this becomes a premium feature, usage could drop and create unnecessary gaps between users.

Overall, I support giving this a try with clear evaluation criteria and a focus on preserving group dynamics.

Hey Klaus,

For context, the Telegram chat is not quite private. Anyone using 3rm could be capturing that data already (non consentually but anyhow...)

And also

Note the data will only be used by those in the chat. So it's not being made any less private than it already is.

At the moment we have 3 sources of information:

• Forum
• Telegram (it is not necessary to use the DAO chat, which has so many problems with access)
• Calls

1. We discussed that it is necessary to fulfill requests from the owners of the information, but unfortunately there were no requests, although the offer has existed for 16 days
2. There is no information whether this AI will be able to collect data from calls that provide more prompt information

We agree a summary tool could help digest info from the Delegate TG group, which at times can feel overwhelming. Ideally bot requests are sent to the asker in a DM not to populate even more the group with bot questions and answers.

Regarding privacy, we agree the bot to access the same information as the rest of the group members, with any potential delegate deciding to opt out having the right to do so.

As the TG group is not currently owned by the DAO, we don't think this needs to go for a snapshot vote.

I am largely neutral on whether a bot is actually necessary or not. I’d also imagine if one wanted to get caught up they could export the text and parse it in an AI product separately.

That said, I don’t agree with most of the privacy concern arguments here. I echo several others in saying that the idea that broadcasting to 200+ people is a bit silly to consider private in any context (with or without a bot).

However, I do think this resurfaces a trend amongst some recent integration requests (Together and Huddle01) regarding privacy at large. It seems we as a community have no concrete definition or consensus on matters of expected privacy or lack thereof.

I would call for a broader discussion on what privacy really means to us as a DAO. Personally, in the context of a delegate channel, (beyond being limited in privacy already) I’m not sure that walled garden chats are necessarily beneficial. And, who is this private from exactly? If effectively all 200 individuals who even tangentially engage with Arbitrum are already there, then I can’t really imagine who this comfort notion of “privacy” is actually providing us separation from? (Other protocols? Search engine logs from posting on the forum? – genuinely curious).

In the case of recorded meetings, I’ve said before, but Sinkas does a great job to announce before records start to allow participants to prepare accordingly. This is a matter of procedural privacy which does make sense to me.

But ultimately, we regularly discuss privacy without ever having had a conversation of the core ideas therein: what is our standard of privacy? who are we maintaining privacy from? when should things not be private? what are our processes to uphold the privacy standards we eventually land on? etc…

That content is private and personal. Together Crew, their team, and their data processors, will have access to the data, and once they do, they can use that data however they see fit. That's the issue.

And the chat is not property of the DAO yet. It's still owned by me.

Also, if you remember, there were already conversations in this private chat about installing a bot like this, and the sentiment at the time was not very favorable, if I remember correctly.

I recommend that delegates who want telegram chat summarization use a personal summarization telegram chat tool, like 3Sum.me, for example, where they can setup their own preferences and AI summarization context for all of their Telegram chats.

Hey @raam I'm a bit lost here.

Paulo has clarified the chat is property of the DAO

Making governance decisions via a poll would set a strange precedent and risks giving people less of a voice, no? I understand that the DAO directly managing a chat is not ideal (the chat governance could be transferred to OpCo or the AF or someone for active management, but that hasn't happened and would likely require a proposal for that specific purpose, which is a different concern to ours).

We appreciate @danielo for the proposal and recognize its potential to alleviate information overload within the Arbitrum DAO delegate community. As a team operating primarily in the Asian timezone, we often find ourselves waking up to extensive discussions that occurred overnight. The depth and quality of these conversations are commendable, but catching up can be challenging. A summarization tool would be valuable in helping us stay informed and engaged, ensuring we don't miss critical updates or insights.

However, we also understand and respect the concerns raised by Paulo, especially regarding the privacy and ownership of the "Arbitrum DAO Delegates" Telegram chat. This chat has been a cornerstone for delegate coordination, and any changes to its structure or functionality should be approached with caution and consensus. It's essential to ensure that all members feel comfortable and that their privacy is respected.

We believed these are some of the things that could be done to help with the concerns:

• Before implementing the bot, conduct a poll within the delegate chat to gauge support and obtain explicit consent from members.
• We also think that transparency about the bot's capabilities, data handling practices, and any third-party integrations is crucial. So providing clear documentation on how data will be used, stored, and protected.
• Delegates should have the option to opt-out and have their data excluded or deleted upon request.

I was referring to your data processors, aka, the companies that run the AI models you will use. Unless Together Crew runs their own self-hosted AI models where they run this type of AI summarization.

I will execute whatever the delegates decide, yes. As I've always done in regards to that chat. No need to resort to name calling @danielo.

I would also recommend sharing first the outcomes of the previous Together Crew proposal, so that the delegates can assess if it's worthwhile or not, as a whole, before Together Crew asks for more of the delegates private data.

I fully support the idea of making this type of information available.

I belive in information being accessible. I don't like the idea of people opting out, and I'm also curious how it can be demonstrated that we didn't take information from someone in particular. You can tell the bot not to mention that person, but their knowledge and their lessons will still be accessible - and they should be (unless you truly erase the data, witch isnt fun).

I'm personally asking for a grant on Questbook. As a delegate myself, I see the need for this type of tooling, and I personally don't want to pay for the service, and I feel it might be the same for other delegates. I like the idea of making it open and accessible.