Considering that the telegram group is not a communications channel created or maintained by the DAO as highlighted by @paulofonseca and @raam our suggestion is just to create a poll in the forum for everyone to decide if they want the bot included or not.
On scraping the website, a discussion with OCL or AF would be a better course of action.
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 donāt miss critical updates or insights.
However, we also understand and respect the concerns raised by Paulo, especially regarding the privacy and ownership of the āArbitrum DAO Delegatesā 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. Itās 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:
Like many others have mentioned the Arbitrum DAO Delegates isnāt owned by the DAO, so thereās really no need for this proposal
Also @danielo, fun fact, but you can export the full chat history from the Telegram group right now directly from Telegram into a single < 40MB folder with all messages spread out in 7 HTML files, so itās not like the chat is private or even remotely close to being so now 
thanks, will do
absolutely! Please see at the bottom of this page, within the FAQ the section " How do you manage privacy and data?" https://www.togethercrew.com/
100% agree. Any delegate that contacts us/me with a request can have the their data deleted and never accessed again (unless they request so).
I value the current private Delegate Telegram group. It has an intimate and ad hoc feeling, less formal than the forum.
I feel adding in data capture and AI analysis will change how I and others express, like how people change how they act and what words they use as soon as a video camera shows up at an event, it puts people into a different mode.
I get all the rational reasons being offered here under the claims of increasing efficiency and responsible handling of data, however I canāt get past the feeling that the Telegram group is a unique cultural space and asset for Arbitrum contributors to speak. For me this is more valuable than, getting AI summaries or more efficient searching of links and I want to cultivate and protect it as is.
At the moment we have 3 sources of 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 donāt think this needs to go for a snapshot vote.
Hey Klaus,
For context, the Telegram chat is not quite private. Anyone using 3rm could be capturing that data already (non consentually but anyhowā¦)
And also
Note the data will only be used by those in the chat. So itās not being made any less private than it already is.
sorry, what do you mean?
In the current stage of development, weāre not able to collect data from calls fully automatically. However, with a bit of manual work, we could make this happen easily. Telegram will give us a nice interface to query the data.
What I mean is that we have been discussing the need to survey information owners for too long, but we donāt conduct the survey itself. Nothing fundamental.
We support adding the TogetherCrew summarizer and Q&A bot to the Delegates Telegram chat, as we think it is a useful tool. Because the chat is an informal, privately owned spaceānot a DAO-governed assetāa Snapshot vote is unnecessary. A quick sentiment poll inside the chat should be enough. The botās back-end processors would gain access to membersā messages, so each participant must explicitly opt in, and any messages from those who do not consent should be excluded from indexing.
I am largely neutral on whether a bot is actually necessary or not. Iād 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 donāt 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) Iām 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 canāt really imagine who this comfort notion of āprivacyā is actually providing us separation from? (Other protocols? Search engine logs from posting on the forum? ā genuinely curious).
In the case of recorded meetings, Iāve 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? etcā¦
Thank you @danielo for the proposal
Hereās my two cents:
I sometimes find it challenging to keep up with Telegram chats, especially due to time zone differences. While this isnāt 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 doesnāt 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 thereās very little downside for current members.
The option to opt out is crucial, if the most active Telegram contributors choose to opt out the toolās value would diminishes significantly. Making sure that these members feel comfortable and included is key.
Despite some delegates suggesting the proposal shouldnāt go to snapshot (and while Iām 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 arenāt 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.