Meeting Minutes 04/18/2025

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)
Simon F.	No	Interim Chair	Y
Terence ‘Tex’ McCutcheon	Yes	Interim Secretary	N
Jack Briggs	No	Secretary	N
Laura M.	No	Member - Cardano Foundation	Y
Nathan A.	No	Member - EMURGO	Y
Wes P.	No	Member - Rare Network	Y
Martin M.	Yes	Member	Y
Vaibhav (Gintama)	Yes	Member	Y
Mubarak O.	Yes	Member	Y
Tim H.	No	Member	Y
Rand M.	No	SME - Rare Network	N
Natalia	No	SME	N
John G.	Yes	SME	N
Juan S.	No	SME	N
Jose I.	No	SME - ADA Solar	N

Other Guests:

• N/A

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 4.18.25

• Verbal/Non-verbal Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting.

• Open Forum

Decisions/Actions

• N/A: A quorum was not met.

Topic	Discussion	Action Items
Meeting Attendance & Quorum	Discussion around low attendance (5 expected, potentially fewer) impacting decision-making ability. Noted that Simon is in Vietnam and unavailable.	None
Upcoming Holiday & Impact on Work	Acknowledged a 4-day holiday weekend approaching, potentially limiting availability of some members.	Members to indicate their availability to work during the holiday weekend.
GMC Proposal Revision Deadline (March 24th)	Emphasized the solid deadline of March 24th for any revisions to the GMC proposal. Concern was raised about the limited time, especially with the upcoming holiday, to address feedback and questions.	Committee members to prioritize completing their reviews and providing feedback on proposals.
Community Proposal Review Process & Tools	Discussed the process for reviewing community proposals and the use of the provided Excel file and individual documents. Confusion and frustration were expressed regarding the use and completion of the tools/files provided by Terence. Gintama noted putting reviews in the "details tab" rather than the designated proposal files due to discomfort with the format.	Committee members to use the provided files for reviewing proposals and providing comments, ideally following the intended format. John offered to use the comment function within the files.
Addressing DREP Questions on GMC Proposal	Significant concern was raised that questions from DREPs on the GMC proposal in the gov tool remained unanswered. It was stressed that unanswered questions could lead to the proposal failing. 16 specific questions were identified.	GMC committee members to urgently work on formulating and providing answers to the 16 questions from DREPs in the gov tool responses document (second sheet).
Communication with DREPs (Specifically "Whales")	Discussion on the best approach to communicate with DREPs, particularly those who voted "no" on the GMC proposal. Martin suggested a personal approach and meeting, while Gintama favored faster communication via tagging on X (formerly Twitter) once questions are answered.	Committee members to discuss and agree on the communication strategy for informing DREPs that their questions have been addressed.
GMC Proposal Voting Status	Noted that the GMC proposal currently has "no" votes and no "yes" votes from DREPs, highlighting the urgency of addressing concerns.	Urgently address the DREP questions and communicate the responses to potentially sway votes.
NCL (New Committee Lead/Layer?) Status	Concern was raised that two NCL-related items have not met the required threshold to pass, with deadlines approaching (one expiring soon, one on March 24th). Uncertainty about what happens if they don't pass.	Clarify the implications if the NCL items do not pass.
GMC Proposal Inclusion in Intersect's Budget Submission	Discussed the process and timeline for the GMC proposal to be included in Intersect's first governance action budget submission. It was stated that if the proposal is not accepted by the reconciliation workshop dates (starting March 28th), it will not be included. Conflicts with other vendor budgets (Rare, Scribe) were mentioned as requiring resolution and budget revision.	Ensure the GMC proposal is finalized and concerns addressed before the reconciliation workshop dates to be considered for Intersect's budget. Resolve conflicts and revise the budget in light of other proposals.
Balancing GMC Authority with DREP Oversight	Discussion on how the delegated authority of the GMC will be balanced with DREP oversight to prevent centralized decision-making, particularly in response to a specific DREP question. Terence provided examples of how this could be addressed (connecting with DREPs, special meetings, meeting minutes excerpts, using the GMC X account for temperature checks).	GMC committee members to define and document how they will ensure DREP oversight is balanced with their delegated authority. Formulate a clear answer to the DREP question on this topic.
Onboarding New GMC Members and Processes	Acknowledged that newly elected GMC members might have different approaches and the need to align on processes. The idea of DREPs being observers in committee meetings was brought up.	Current members to document processes and decisions to facilitate onboarding of new members and ensure continuity.
Reviewing Assigned Community Proposals	Martin explained the process for reviewing the assigned community proposals using the provided spreadsheet (Sheet 1) and the linked individual files for each proposal. Kit confirmed seeing his assigned proposals and the linked files.	Assigned committee members to complete their reviews of community proposals by filling out the designated files.
Contribution from Non-Voting Members (John)	John, a non-voting member, asked how he could contribute. It was suggested he could review proposals and add comments within the individual proposal files.	John to review community proposals and add comments within the linked files for each proposal.
Disagreement on Review Format	Gintama expressed discomfort with the format of the individual proposal review files and put comments in a separate detail column in the main spreadsheet instead. This was a point of contention regarding the importance of using the standardized format for clarity and DREP review.	Committee members are strongly encouraged to use the standardized individual proposal review files to ensure consistency and ease of review for DREPs and aggregation by Terence.