Connect WG / Comms teams

Hi, looking for your thoughts o-Wise-ones.

There seems to be a lot of overlap in the work of Comms and the comms of the Connect WG, albeit that the two teams have slightly different perspectives and outreach to different audiences.

There are two meetings run each week for each group. Recently, there has been a bit of talk about representatives attending both meetings to make sure both groups are in the loop and to avoid duplication of effort and work. This seems inefficient to me from time and cost perspective.

What seems more sensible is if the two teams become one: one meeting, shared goals and more time available due to less admin and meetings. IMO it will aid collaboration and team coherence and avoid wasted time doing unnecessary updates.

The other aspects of the Connect WG: offramping and project curation are probably more at home in the community space and governance, respectively.

What d’ya think?

@karmaticacid @WhyldWanderer @qqsong @rainer.hoell @aabugosh @Suga @Cotabe @mitch

(the outcome of this discussion may also create some slight changes to role proposals).


I agree with what you’re saying, @clara_gr!

1 Like

Am brainstorming too…

1 Like

I think it could work. Maybe we can extend the meeting by one hour (either starting an hour earlier or going one hour longer), and have the Connect WG session at the beginning (and whoever wants to stay for one or both sections can do so)

Yes, they wouldn’t necessarily have to be merged per se, but it would be better if everyone was on the same page so to speak and not have delegates for that. In that way, everyone could take on roles and issues that were clear across the board and would therefore avoid overlap as @clara_gr suggested.

I’m not sure part of the solution is a 2-hour meeting however.

I’d be okay with a single longer meeting. That might be more efficient than two hr-long meetings if there is significant overlap anyway. It would also reduce the need for having people serve as bridges between the two groups.


Defining Scope

We discussed this in the connect WG meeting today and I was initially unsure, but as I think about it… it probably makes sense to combine them, or, at the very least have all connect WG members join the comms call for management of issues and then keep the separate hour for further discussion on specific points, if need be.

From my perspective, key objectives of the connect WG are:

  • get more donors/donations on giveth
  • get more awesome projects on giveth
  • create more 101 level user content to improve in the project & donor onboarding

Is that right?

Before connect, these tasks fell also within the scope of comms, so the overlap is natural. There are also other pieces covered by comms that are not covered above… things like new product/development communication, conference planning, dApp improvements, etc.

The comms team also has clear processes for issue management, review & delivery. We work on having a unified voice for giveth communications. We also work on managing & maintaining that voice across our platforms including Twitter, newsletter, emails, documentation, through the dapp & products, and more.

The connect WG really seemed to form as a group of new Givethers with valuable perspectives & past experience, but who did not really get much of a chance to get integrated into the processes, platforms & voice.


I think having one central hour-long call to touch on all issues, assign tasks & get aligned on voice/messaging would be valuable. We could have a separate placeholder hour on the calendar that is kept open as a space for nuanced discussion & turned into a weekly hack session if need be.

What do you think?

Also, let’s move the comms call time

Our current comms call time is pretty bad for Europe, I hear. We are proposing to change the call time, please fill out the doodle:

Whether or not we combine the calls, it would be useful to have connect WG members in the comms call to learn more about our platforms, processes & broad messaging.


As expressed in the Connect WG call this week, the idea of putting the two meetings back-to-back might be a useful place to start as well. That would mean:
Tuesday 17h-18h CET (currently Connect) and
Tuesday 18h-19h CET for new Comms times

1 Like

The comms call has been moved! It is now Tuesday at 10am Costa Rica time - right after the Connect WG call right now.

Also, I think we should get some soft consensus on the idea of merging the WGs more fully… using Comms regular call to keep issues organized, coordinate on sending content via our various platforms etc… and then keeping the Connect WG hour open for more in-depth discussions regarding any of the issues out of the comms call, or specific research/broad discussion tasks.

We could swap the two hours if it makes more sense later. So!

Shall we merge the Connect & Comms WGs as per the abovementioned?

  • Yes, let’s join forces!
  • No, I have a better idea…
  • Abstain

0 voters

@Suga @aabugosh @clara_gr @qqsong @rainer.hoell @WhyldWanderer @Griff @mitch @Cotabe @Sym

@clara_gr my perspective is Comm is more executional while Connect is more strategic which can inform not just about communication. The support side I feel is more community oriented and do require lots of work. A little conflicted about this one.


They certainly perform different functions, but I agree with many that it’s rather essential that all folks in Connect know what is happening in Comms, and I don’t think a single delegated person can or should make the link solo.

Since there is really no middle ground (it’s kind of just yes or no!), I think a merge is better than not a merge. I agree that the most important issue is what drove @clara_gr to write this post, which is that it will “aid collaboration and team coherence and avoid wasted time doing unnecessary updates.”


Definitely hear you point here @qqsong.

I’m thinking the Connect WG call should perhaps be kept open as a space to discuss research plans / results… and then provide recommendations (w/ advice process) in the comms call, where they can becoming issues ready for execution. Recommendations can make their way from Connect to Comms via agenda topics on the weekly comms notion agenda.

For example, in the connect WG it becomes apparent that we need a better resources to help new non-crypto savvy projects get onboarded. The “project onboarding guide” point gets added to the comms agenda, and then becomes and issue on giveth-planning with someone assigned to it. It goes through comms w/ our process from drafting to review/QA to uploading to docs & then shared via socials.

I think it is also pretty important that most connect WG members make it to most comms calls in order to support in the execution of those tasks in an organized way.


@karmaticacid I liked your suggestion to shift the comms call as a first step and then observe for a while how it feels. Why not just do exactly that? There will surely be more participation from connect folks in the comms call now.
I find it a bit rushed to merge the groups now. As mentioned, I think that apart from the support aspects, the connect group is concerned more with potential partnerships with nonprofit/donor/grantee platforms and networks, something not at the core of comms.
At the same time, my time with Giveth has been short, and I am completely fine if more experienced colleagues make a different decision.


Agree with not rushing to merge. @karmaticacid @Suga, as more of a background, the Connect Group’s terms of reference are beyond Communicaitons which also relates to Governance (exploring curation and verification standards), fundraising (supporting projects and the platform itself), as well as community engagement (finding the best way to engage certain groups - first identify them of course) and strategic (using our consulting background to come up with solutions that can provide more data-driven strategic directions).

I see the group working on research and strategy first, propose and then would look for the right group for execution. The execution may be Comm but also could be Governance, Verification, and other teams. Here is the Miro board that has the group’s terms of reference as well as some questions/problems we thought we are tasked to resolve. Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration

Also echo @rainer.hoell, I am also quite new and in a consulting role, if the community think the working group is not productive, really happy to re-arrange and redefine the work and combine efforts.


When I opened this topic, it was my intention to gather suggestions and discuss better collaboration between Comms and Connect, in response to discussions of overlap between the two teams in recent meetings.

In observation of subsequent discussion, focus has been on the word ‘merge’. For me merge has a positive connotation: a joining of forces; of coming together. So, I looked up this word in the Cambridge dictionary and these are some examples it provided of the word ‘merge’ in action:

  • That is the area where our interests merge.
  • The stream merges with the river here.
  • The blue and green paint merge together at the edges.
  • After a while the narrow trail merges with a wider path

I think the use of the word merge has hijacked the wider picture when my intention was to identify where the two groups’ interests converge and diverge. It was about a discovery of where our ‘paints’ merge at the edges and where the blue and green remain vivid and radiant; where tasks follow the same wider path, as well as continuing our journeys on the narrower trails, when our expertise requires it.

It was to open a discussion about joining forces, collaborating efficiently, learning from each other’s experiences and enjoying the time spent altogether. It was about putting our best foot forward from the outset of our work together.

In hindsight, it’s probable that the post was mistimed and misworded and I would like to apologise for any stress caused and to anyone that experienced discomfort.

The reason for opening the discussion was born out of better understanding the wider goals of the comms circle and discovering where the teams blend and where the two teams complement each other.

Communications team is described as the ‘glue that holds’ Community and Commons together around these broad gluey goals (Community | Giveth Docs):

  • Build Community around For-Good Projects

  • Offer a Clear & Supportive Onboarding Process

  • Coordinate External and Internal Communications

  • Create a Network of Partners

Imo all these goals are supported by combined tasks across both groups, as well as additional important activities outwith.

I believe that any move towards collaboration is an incremental process born out of experience, discussion and iteration.

I support the idea of moving the meetings back-to-back and was really excited by the experience of being able to attend both the Connect and Comms meetings this week. I believe this will enlighten us as to where we can join forces, as well as illuminate the areas of focus that fall outside of these broad goals above.

1 Like

@karmaticacid @WhyldWanderer and the Comm and Connect team. Today the Connect Stewards finally met (as I was out for the entire week last week and was not aprised of the background behind this vote). I feel that there is a mis-understanding on the intention of the original post which does not reflect all the stewards’s opinion. I feel the vote is invalid as not all the stewards of the Connect group were informed before the votes and came in very late and was not given a chance to sufficiently voice opposition.

I don’t know why there is still contention in this post. We discussed for nearly 45 minutes in the last connect WG call, not to mention the time spent the previous week in the connect call & comms call. IMO, we have already resolved this…

The conclusions being:

  • move the comms call to Tuesdays, to a better time to accommodate european time zone
  • keep connect WG call as a space for broader discussion and generation of “recommendations”
  • recommendations move from connect to comms by being adding to the comms WG agenda
  • issue management of emails, written content, blogs etc. maintained within the comms call

The purpose being to eliminate redundancy, improve cooperation, follow advice process & maintain procedural organization.

Is there some issue with this?