# Meeting Minutes 04/16/2025 ## Attendees: | Name | Attendance | Role | Voting Seat (Y/N) | | ------------------------ | ---------- | --------------------------- | ----------------- | | Simon F. | Yes | Interim Chair | Y | | Terence ‘Tex’ McCutcheon | Yes | Interim Secretary | N | | Jack Briggs | No | Secretary | N | | Laura M. | Yes | Member - Cardano Foundation | Y | | Nathan A. | No | Member - EMURGO | Y | | Wes P. | Yes | Member - Rare Network | Y | | Martin M. | Yes | Member | Y | | Vaibhav (Gintama) | Yes | Member | Y | | Mubarak O. | No | Member | Y | | Tim H. | Yes | Member | Y | | Rand M. | No | SME - Rare Network | N | | Natalia | Yes | SME | N | | John G. | Yes | SME | N | | Juan S. | Yes | SME | N | | Jose I. | Yes | SME - ADA Solar | N | | JB | No | SME -SCRIB3 | N | Other Guests: * Elizabeth Morrison * Thiago Nunes ## Intros/COI **Simon:** Simon 'Seomon' Fleck: Interim GMC Chair, Cardano After Dark co-founder, ODIN member\ **Laura:** Laura Mattiucci, Director Marketing and Comms at CF\ **Nate:** Nate Acton, VP of Global Marketing at EMURGO\ **Wes:** TBD\ **Martin:** TBD\ **Vaibhav:** Voting member of bootstrap growth and marketing committee. Voluntary Part of Various Working groups in intersect.\ **Mubarak:** AKA Kit Willow: Voting member of the Growth and Marketing Committee. Community member\ **Tim:** Tim Harrison, EVP Community & Ecosystem, Input | Output\ **Rand:** TBD\ **Natalia:** ADALINK, Interim GMC Non-Voting Member, CEO of AdaLink \ **John:** TBD\ **Juan:** TBD\ **Jose:** TBD\ **Jack:** TBD\ **Tex:** Open Source Program Manager (Intersect), OSC Secretary, Committee Liaison ## Agenda 4.16.25 * Budget Proposal Review * GMC Proposal Revisions * AdaLink Proposal ## Decisions/Actions * Proposal Review Process: The team agreed to conduct individual reviews of their assigned proposals first, followed by a discussion to align on recommendations. * Review Deadline: A tentative deadline of Friday was set for the initial review of assigned proposals, although some members noted potential conflicts with the Easter weekend. * Spreadsheet Usage: The team agreed to utilize the shared spreadsheet with specific columns to indicate alignment with the GMC proposal and to suggest budget adjustments for individual proposals. * Fund Reallocation (Deferred): The discussion of potentially reallocating funds from work streams with few suitable proposals to the "growth" category was deferred until after the initial proposal review. * Flowchart Creation: Gnobudy John agreed to take the lead on drafting a flowchart to visualize the proposal review process. * AdaLink Proposal Follow-up: Natalia (AdaLink) will follow up with Tim Harrison IO regarding his specific questions about their proposal. | Topic | Discussion | Action Items | | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1. Introductions and Location Check | Laura initiated by asking participants their locations and time zones (India, Northern Ireland). Elizabeth Morrison greeted the team. | No specific actions needed. | | 2. Budget Presentation Feedback | Gnobudy John mentioned hearing Laura's budget presentation on "weak space" and thought it sounded good. Laura felt it was a "disaster" due to the time constraint. Martin Marinov shared his experience presenting at 5 am, managing to cover the work streams. | No specific actions needed. | | 3. Clarity on Budget Presentation | Wes Parkinson raised concerns about the lack of clear distinction between the overall budget and individual proposals, suggesting the need for a clearer forum to explain the overall budget framework. Martin noted that some proposals mentioned alignment with the overall marketing budget. | Wes to consider how to articulate the relationship between the overall budget and individual proposals in their review. | | 4. Today's Meeting Agenda | Gintama inquired about the meeting agenda. Laura clarified that Simon is in Vietnam for the builder fest and the agenda was to review proposals. | No specific actions needed. | | 5. Proposal Assignment and Review Process | Laura indicated that column B in the shared file assigns line items to individuals. She asked Terence to share the proposal file. Tim Harrison IO stated he would review proposals critically for fit and potential scale, acknowledging some might be better suited for Catalyst. | Team to review assigned proposals in Column B. | | 6. Catalyst vs. Current Budget | Martin asked Tim for clarification on why some proposals might be better for Catalyst. Tim explained Catalyst's established process for unproven activities and his preference for smaller initial funding for some ideas. Wes countered that Catalyst can be influenced by political factors, whereas this process allows experts to decide. | Team to consider the suitability of proposals for this budget versus Catalyst during their review. | | 7. Proposal Review Timeline and Process | Laura asked how to proceed with the review. Tim suggested individual review followed by a discussion to align. Gintama questioned if the assigned reviewer's comments are final. Laura suggested a second opinion column and discussing discrepancies. Gnobudy John emphasized the need for a deadline and clarity on the selection process for proposals supporting the GMC budget. | Establish a clear deadline for initial proposal reviews (suggested Friday). Create a second opinion column in the spreadsheet. Plan to discuss proposals with significantly different opinions in the next meeting. | | 8. Reconciliation Workshop and Budget Changes | Terence explained that the reviews help Reps make decisions for the reconciliation workshops post the 24th. He clarified that the committee can alter the GMC budget proposal to align with other community initiatives and avoid duplication. Martin questioned if they could change a vendor's proposed amount. Terence clarified they can adjust the GMC budget and endorse specific vendors/proposals. | Team to consider adjusting the GMC budget based on endorsed proposals to avoid duplication. | | 9. Addressing Potential Overlap and External Proposals | Tim raised the scenario of potential overlap between the GMC budget and external proposals (e.g., community management, events). He emphasized avoiding a situation where the GMC consumes all funds, leaving nothing for good external proposals. Wes highlighted the work done by the GMC and the expectation that vendors would align with expert recommendations. Laura suggested candidly reviewing proposals to endorse suitable ones and then adjusting the GMC budget accordingly. | Team to identify and consider strong external proposals and how they might fit within the GMC budget allocations. | | 10. Process Flowchart | Gnobudy John stressed the importance of creating a written flowchart to illustrate the proposal review process for the community and for internal clarity. | Gnobudy John to take the lead on drafting a flowchart outlining the proposal review process. | | 11. Proposal Feedback Deadline | Gintama formally suggested a Friday deadline for everyone to review their assigned proposals and provide feedback. Tim noted Good Friday and Easter Monday, committing to completing his review by the end of Thursday. | Confirm Friday as the initial feedback deadline, acknowledging potential individual constraints. | | 12. Potential Fund Reallocation | Gintama suggested that if certain work streams have few or no suitable proposals, the allocated funds could be reduced and potentially moved to the "growth" category. Gnobudy John suggested this would be considered later after the initial proposal review. | Defer discussion on fund reallocation until after the initial review of proposals. | | 13. Spreadsheet Updates and Review Columns | Laura suggested adding "yes" and "no" columns for endorsement and a point system for each reviewer. Tim suggested his personal 1-5 rating system. Laura also proposed a column to indicate "yes, but" with the identified problem. Terence clarified the existing columns for alignment and budget adjustment. | Utilize the "Aligns to GMC Proposal?" column (Column K). Utilize the "GMC Budget Adjusted Workstream" column (Column L) to suggest budget changes. Martin to copy his existing notes into the spreadsheet. | | 14. Access and Editing Issues with Spreadsheet | Several participants (Tim, Laura, Juan) experienced issues with accessing and editing the shared spreadsheet. Terence addressed the permission settings. | Ensure all team members have the necessary editing permissions for the proposal review spreadsheet. | | 15. Natalia (AdaLink) Proposal Presentation | Natalia presented the AdaLink proposal for a blockchain-powered affiliate network and business growth infrastructure for Cardano. The platform aims to track marketing performance on-chain. Questions were raised about the platform's live status, ad inventory, and comparable products. | Natalia to provide Tim with answers to his questions via Discord. Team to consider the AdaLink proposal in their reviews, noting its potential and current development stage. | --- # Agent Instructions: 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: ``` GET https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-growth-marketing-committee/meeting-minutes/2025-meeting-minutes/meeting-minutes-04-16-2025.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. 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.