> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/february-2nd-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # February 2nd, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ## Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — February 2nd, 2026 **Date:** February 2, 2026 **Time:** 07:58 EST **Attendees:** Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance), Jose Velazquez, Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Nikhil Shetty, Patrick Tobler, Randy Randy, Rita Mistry, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Vinay Devabhakthuni, Vinit Inamke **Quorum:** Confirmed. *** ### 1. Opening and Agenda Lloyd opened the meeting, confirmed quorum, and outlined the primary objective: 1. **Final review and committee vote on the Budget Process Info Action (BPIA)** to move it forward to board approval and on-chain submission. A secondary focus was a status update on the Net Change Limit (NCL) vote and continued refinement of the BPIA language, including work package budgeting, cost categories, communications planning, and educational materials. *** ### 2. Net Change Limit (NCL) Update #### 2.1 Current Status * Simo reported the NCL was at **49.37% approval** as of the morning check. * Several large DReps, including CF, had **not yet cast their votes**. * Lloyd confirmed that, following discussions, there was no known objection from outstanding voters. #### 2.2 Outlook * Committee expects the NCL to **pass the 50% threshold** once remaining ballots are cast. *** ### 3. Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) — Review and Discussion #### 3.1 Recap from Wednesday Working Session * Simo noted that Stage 0 had been agreed upon in the prior working session. * Discussion on Stage 1 had begun, with several changes made since: * **Milestones replaced with work packages** — work packages allow for both large and small proposals to be more granular or less granular as the proposer prefers. * **Projected ROI** is now scoped per work package rather than per budget line item. * Vendors can now include a **link to their supporting documentation** within the template. #### 3.2 Work Package Usability Concerns * Kriss Baird raised concerns about **user acceptance testing**: * No fully loaded, granular proposal had been tested through the UI. * Risk that the final output could be a worse experience for proposers or DReps if untested. * Kristijan Kowalsky noted the current UI mockup is an **AI-generated frame**, not a functional program. * Simo confirmed: * The **Ecclesia (Adam Dean) team** has agreed to begin development. * Templates and UI mockups have been shared with the dev team. * A **working demo is expected within one week**. * Full tool delivery is targeted for **end of February / early March** (\~6 weeks from prior week). #### 3.3 Budget Granularity Resolution * Rita Mistry provided context: * Templates were built by reviewing prior budget proposals including KPIs, milestones, and abstracts. * Cost categories are **bucketed** (e.g., resources, infrastructure) rather than requiring individual line items. * Goal is to make proposals **comparable** for DReps while capturing enough detail to understand the rationale behind figures. * Kriss Baird acknowledged this addressed his concern from the prior week about excessive granularity. * Lloyd noted that a future **CSV import / API import** feature could further streamline proposer experience in subsequent budget rounds. * Committee consensus: * **Cost categories should be consolidated**, not granular line items. * Constraints are beneficial for apples-to-apples comparison across proposals. #### 3.4 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action (TWGA) Language * Simo flagged that the term "single budget set" needed correction — the process produces **two Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions (TWGAs)**, not one. * Lloyd clarified the consolidation process: * All proposals meeting the **≥67% approval threshold** from Stage 2 are consolidated into two TWGAs. * Committee agreed to ensure consistent use of the full term **"Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action"** throughout the document. #### 3.5 Administration and Permissionless Participation * Kristijan Kowalsky raised questions about scope: * This is a **Cardano budget process run through Intersect**, open to anyone — not limited to Intersect members. * External entities can use the process but opt out of Intersect as administrator, in which case they must produce their own TWGA. * Lloyd confirmed: * Stage 4 should explicitly state that **proposals not selecting Intersect as administrator must file their own TWGA**. * Simo noted this was in his working notes but not yet in the info action document. #### 3.6 Proposal Gatekeeping Boundaries * Kristijan flagged language suggesting the budget committee and Intersect team would "identify and document overlapping proposals." * Committee concern: * The budget committee **should not act as a gatekeeper** on proposal content. * Simo and Lloyd clarified: * The only actual gatekeep is whether **Intersect can accept the project for administration**. * Beyond that, checks are procedural: treasury fee paid, all required fields completed, process followed in full. #### 3.7 Communications Plan Discussion * Kriss Baird raised the need for a **substantive communications plan** to avoid repeating issues from the 2025 budget cycle: * Last year's communications suffered from blind spots, insufficient resources, and confusion across multiple voting stages. * Education materials are mentioned in the BPIA but without enough specificity. * Rita Mistry responded: * The committee has already been **socializing the process** extensively through X Spaces, community feedback sessions, and iterative template discussions. * Standardized templates and hover-over explanations in the tool will further support education. * Lloyd noted: * Stage 0 focuses on **on-chain prerequisites** — a comms plan may better fit in Stage 1 (Preparation and Data Collection). * Proposal: mandate that a comms plan exists, is resourced, and is executed, without being overly prescriptive in an on-chain document. * Kristijan Kowalsky cautioned: * Educational materials require **budget and resourcing** — the committee is a paid committee but not a funded working group for content production. * Intersect office should confirm feasibility before committing to deliverables. * Lloyd confirmed existing resources: * **Explainer articles** are already being produced through Intersect. * **Video walkthroughs** (up to 3/month) are covered under Lloyd's contract. * **X Spaces / recorded Q\&A sessions** are also contracted and will continue. * Rita suggested committee members **create ideal example proposals** to serve as both a UI test and educational reference. #### 3.8 Cost Categories and Reviewer Benefit Text * Kriss Baird noted the **reviewer benefit text** in the work package section was outdated — references to granular unit cost comparisons no longer apply. * Benchmarking links were also flagged as **redundant** given the move to consolidated cost categories. * Rita requested all committee members **review the cost categories** to ensure completeness and alignment with Intersect's internal financial reporting needs. * Simo agreed to **check internally** with the Intersect core team and finance on cost category alignment. *** ### 4. Committee Vote — Budget Process Info Action #### 4.1 Motion * Kristijan Kowalsky moved to **accept the Budget Process Info Action as-is**, with the understanding that tooling details will evolve and outstanding text refinements will be made. * Megan Hess seconded the motion. * Kriss Baird added an amendment: acceptance is **conditional on the discussed changes being made** (cost categories, reviewer benefit text, TWGA language). * Kristijan accepted the amendment. #### 4.2 Roll Call Vote | Member | Vote | | -------------------------- | ---- | | Eric Helms (SCATDAO) | Yes | | Jose Velazquez | Yes | | Kriss Baird | Yes | | Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky | Yes | | Rita Mistry | Yes | | Megan Hess | Yes | **Result:** Motion carries **unanimously**. *** ### 5. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | | Apply outstanding BPIA text edits (TWGA language, reviewer benefit, cost categories) | Simo / Committee | Per amendment conditions | | Share final template form with Ecclesia dev team | Simo | To begin tool development | | Confirm cost categories with Intersect finance team | Simo | Ensure alignment with internal reporting | | Add Stage 4 language re: self-administered TWGAs | Simo / Lloyd | For proposals not using Intersect as administrator | | Produce working demo of budget tool | Ecclesia (Adam Dean) team | Expected within \~1 week | | Develop comms plan to support process execution | Lloyd / Simo | Alongside Stage 1 preparation | | Create example "ideal proposal" for testing and education | Committee members / Rita | UI validation + educational reference | | Continue educational content production (articles, walkthroughs, X Spaces) | Lloyd | Covered under existing contract | | Submit BPIA to board for final approval | Committee / Simo | Following text refinements | *** ### 6. Adjournment Lloyd thanked the committee for their time and noted the successful unanimous vote on the BPIA. Several members will continue into the ISC meeting immediately following. **Next steps:** * Wednesday working session to finalize outstanding BPIA text edits per the amendment conditions. * Move BPIA to board review and on-chain submission once edits are complete. Meeting adjourned at **01:02:01**. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/february-2nd-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.