Apr 21, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)
Andreas Pletscher	Yes	Secretary
Danielle Stanko		Budget Task Force, IOG Staff
Dave Dionisio		Observer
Joe Maria Francisco Otegui Alvarez		Observer
Jose Velazquez		Former Voting Member
Kristijan Kowalsky		Voting Member, Tweag
Lloyd Duhon		Budget Secretary
Mercy		Voting Member, WADA
Shunsuke Murasaki		Former Voting Member, Mentor, Emurgo

Recording: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nVog9HuQTiDxN3wzMkO8JVLwDmMbwA0S/view?usp=drive_link

Transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NG48kCdy0CY64ncz18G5U74VUhfKX5z_CcimrS2mVMs/edit?tab=t.0

Agenda 1.16.25

• The main goal was to recommend a threshold for proposals to be included in the Budget Info Action (BIA) after the reconciliation workshop.

• Discussions covered prioritizing proposals based on DREP input and committee alignment, while addressing concerns about the overall process and potential DREP workload.

• The meeting also explored the idea of directing certain proposals to Catalyst to streamline the budget allocation process.

Decisions/Actions

Topic	Discussion	Action Items
Budget Info Action (BIA) Threshold Recommendation	The primary focus was to recommend a threshold for proposals to be included in the BIA after the reconciliation workshop. This threshold should indicate sufficient community participation.	Formally recommend a threshold for proposal inclusion in the BIA.
BIA Composition and Structure	Questions were raised about whether non-Intersect-administered proposals should be included in Intersect's BIA, if there should be one or multiple BIAs, and if BIAs should be broken down by category. The consensus was to aim for one info action for now.	Decide on the composition of the BIA (one vs. multiple, categories).
KPIs on Treasury Performance	An older question about including Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) on treasury performance within the BIA was briefly touched upon.	N/A (No definitive action taken on this older question during this meeting).
Net Change Limit (NCL) Status	The net change limit is currently sitting at a "pass," so it's not a priority concern for this meeting.	N/A
Reconciliation Workshop Process	All proposals will go into reconciliation discussions without a prior threshold. After discussions, a decision point will determine which proposals move into the BIA based on a defined threshold.	N/A
Preliminary Filtering of Proposals	Intersect staff (secretaries) will analyze proposals based on DREP temperature checks in Gov Tool, DREP sentiment from comments, and committee comments to create a prioritization. Proposals with "no votes at all" or negative sentiment will fall to the bottom of the list. This preliminary filtering aims to make the DREP's review process more efficient.	Intersect staff to conduct preliminary filtering and prioritization of proposals using DREP temp checks, DREP comments, and committee comments.
Vendor Pitching in Reconciliation Workshop	Vendors will not be given the floor to pitch in the reconciliation session. They will only answer specific questions if asked directly by DREPs.	N/A
Community Feedback Representation	Concerns were raised that current Gov Tool sentiment may not be fully representative due to insufficient participation. The group agreed to use the existing data to indicate strong negative responses and identify duplications for DREPs to address.	Identify and flag duplicated proposals for DREPs to address during reconciliation.
Integration of Past Work and Committee Alignment	There was a strong desire to integrate the work done by committees last year and their prioritization. Proposals aligning with committee budget line items or the product roadmap could receive a higher score in prioritization.	Incorporate committee alignment and roadmap alignment into the prioritization scoring of proposals (e.g., as an extra point).
Weights for Prioritization Criteria	Danielle proposed a weighting system: DREP temp check (10), DREP comments (5), Committee comments (3). Committee alignment was suggested to be weighted at 5. Jose V. argued for higher weight on committee comments. The committee agreed to simplify by focusing on temp check and committee alignment.	Finalize weighting for prioritization criteria (DREP temp check, DREP comments, Committee alignment). Simplify by either removing committee comments or filtering by committee alignment.
Threshold for Info Action Inclusion	The committee debated setting a minimum participation threshold for proposals to enter the BIA. Andreas Pletscher boldly suggested ignoring a minimum participation threshold for the BIA, arguing that setting one might doom the process. Jose Pepe suggested a 67% participation threshold by stake within the reconciliation workshop.	Recommend a 67% participation by stake threshold for proposals to move into the Info Action from the reconciliation workshop.
Impact of High Thresholds on Small Projects	Concerns were raised that a high 67% threshold for the BIA (compared to 50%+1 for the BIA itself and 67% for treasury withdrawals) could exclude smaller projects and discourage ecosystem growth.	N/A (Acknowledged as a challenge, but no immediate action taken).
Catalyst Integration and "Off-Ramps"	It was suggested that proposals better suited for Catalyst should be channeled there. Andreas Pletscher proposed that Catalyst mimic the budget categories, and that "Catalyst ambassadors" be present at the reconciliation workshop to guide such proposals. This aims to avoid proposals feeling "rejected" and to streamline the process.	Chris Baird (Catalyst representative) to receive feedback on channeling proposals to Catalyst and potentially have Catalyst ambassadors at the workshop.