Apr 7, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes
Attendees:
Name
Attendance
Role
Voting Seat (Y/N)
Andreas Pletscher
Yes
Observer, COO of Cardano Foundation. (Temporary Voting member while Rita Mistry was on sabbatical.)
Danielle Stanko
Yes
Budget Task Force, IOG Staff
Dave Dionisio
Yes
Observer
Jose Velazquez
Yes
Former Voting Member
Lloyd Duhon
Yes
Budget Secretary
Mercy
Yes
Voting Member, WADA
Nicolas Cerny
Yes
Observer, Cardano Foundation Staff
Prof. Steven
Yes
Former Voting Member, Mentor, Chairman of Intersect Board.
Shunsuke Murasaki
Former Voting Member, Mentor, Emurgo
Recording: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eNMiXBQOAYCXoHcVMP5qOoLXMNvFAcSU/view?usp=drive_link
Agenda 1.16.25
Verbal/Non-verbal Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting.
Review of the OSC
Open Forum
Decisions/Actions
Topic
Discussion
Action Items
Topical Workshop Agenda (Workshops #2-4)
The proposed order for topical workshops is: Marketing & Innovation (April 14-15), Governance & No Category (April 17-18), and Core & Research (April 24-25). Jose V. expressed concern about the imbalance of proposals per day.
N/A
Balancing Proposal Volume Across Workshops
Strategies discussed for balancing proposal volume include intentional splitting across two time sessions, combining proposals across time zones, and potentially using the "no category" day as an overflow. There was also a suggestion to reduce the total number of topics to just two due to low expected attendance.
Consider intentionally splitting proposals across two time sessions or reducing the number of topics to balance workload.
Committee Presentations in Workshops
Committees are expected to present a high-level overview (20 minutes) of their category's proposals, including quality assessment, gap analysis against previous budgets, and identifying duplications. This aims to give DREPs a sense of the total scope and relevance.
Committees to prepare 20-minute high-level overviews of their respective categories' proposals.
DREP Preparation & Burnout
Concerns were raised about DREP burnout due to the volume of proposals and potential rework if proposals change. It's crucial to clarify messaging: current polling is a "temperature check" for initial feedback, not a final vote. April 24th will be the firm deadline for proposals to be edited.
Clearly communicate the role of early polling as a "temperature check" and the April 24th deadline for proposal edits.
Committee Biases in Analysis
A question was raised about potential bias from committees analyzing proposals within their own areas. The template for analysis includes a section to declare conflicts of interest, and committees are expected to focus on ecosystem needs.
Committees to explicitly declare any conflicts of interest during their presentations.
Proposal Rubric for DREPs
The idea of providing DREPs with a simple rubric (e.g., feasibility, value for money, capability, capacity, history of delivery, price) for evaluating proposals was discussed to ensure comparability. It should serve as a guide, not a rigid checklist.
Develop a suggested rubric or list of guiding questions for DREPs to use during proposal evaluation.
DREP Participation Strategy
DREP participation remains low in both voting (e.g., Net Change Limit) and workshop sign-ups. This is a critical issue that threatens the success of the process. Suggestions included direct marketing, networking, and potentially offering incentives like "pizza parties."
Intensify direct marketing and networking efforts to boost DREP participation in NCL voting and workshop attendance. Revisit the idea of DREP incentives.
Treasury Withdrawal & Info Action Thresholds
Jose V. expressed concern about the 1 billion ADA threshold for initial "soft approval" of proposals, suggesting a middle ground between 67% and 1 billion ADA for the reconciliation workshop. A clearer distinction between thresholds for reconciliation (soft filter) and info action (second filter) is needed.
Clarify and communicate the two-tiered threshold system: one for entry into reconciliation, and another for the info action.
TSC and IO Proposal Alignment
The existence of similar proposals from TSC and IO creates a dilemma for DREPs. There's a need for these groups to collaborate or clarify their offerings to simplify the decision-making process for DREPs.
Encourage TSC and IO to engage in dialogue to streamline their core proposals for DREP clarity.
Optimizing Workshop Schedule
To optimize DREP review time, it was suggested to swap the "Core & Research" and "Governance & No Category" workshop dates, giving DREPs more time to review the larger, more complex Core & Research proposals.
Swap the dates for Core & Research and Governance & No Category workshops.
Leveraging Community Hubs
Community hubs, recently funded by Intersect, could be tasked with reaching out to DREPs in their regions, encouraging participation in workshops, and potentially setting KPIs for DREP engagement.
Danielle Stanko to surface the idea of leveraging community hubs for DREP outreach and engagement.
Last updated