😅(04/17/2025) Meeting Minutes

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)
P. Lucas	Yes	Chair	Y
Adam Dean	Yes	Vice Chair	Y
Terence ‘Tex’ McCutcheon	Yes	Secretary	N
Christian Taylor	No	Member/Seat	N
Sandip Pandey	Yes	Member/Seat	Y
Georg Link	Yes	Member/Seat	Y
Jonathan Kelly	Yes	Member/Seat	Y
Sebastian Pabon	Yes	Member/Seat	Y
Moritz Angermann	No	Member/Seat	Y
Robin Böning	No	Member/Seat	Y
Nicolas Henin	No	Member/Seat	Y

Community/Other Attendees

• Alex Seregin

• Bernard Sibanda

• Jordan Hill

Recording: Open Source Committee (Intersect) - 2025/04/17 - Recording

Transcript: Open Source Committee (Intersect) - 2025/04/17 - Transcript

Chat Transcript: Open Source Committee Meeting – 2025/04/17 – Chat Transcript

Intros

Christian: Head of Open Source Office, Intersect Staff

Tex: Open Source Program Manager, Intersect Staff, Open Source Committee Secretary

Sandip: Dquadrant

Adam: Adam Dean, LLC, Co-Founder, DripDropz, LLC, CIP Editors, Intersect Maintainer

Georg: Bitergia

Lucas: 45B - Cardano Enablement, Onboarding end-users; Supporting cardano Projects;

Sebastian: Gimbalabs contributor, MeshJS contributor, Andamio platform co-founder

Johnny: Non-Custodial Co-Management SysOps Engineer (Tech Janitor) for 3 Mainnet Stake Pools. Cardano Keystone Wallet Ambassador.

Moritz: Head of Platform Engineering, IOE

Nicolas: Technical Architect at IOG (Innovation R&D)

Robin: Cardano Cube, LACE stake pool

Agenda 4.17.25

• Committee Member Actions

  • Budget Proposal Review

  • Developer Advocate Program feedback/design

  • Committee Elections

• Open Source Strategy Draft/Discussion

• Budget Proposal Review/Workshop Attendance

Decisions/Actions

• Decision to vote on a neutral stance regarding external budget proposals: The committee decided to hold an asynchronous vote on Discord regarding their official stance on budget proposals that have not gone through the Open Source Committee's established processes.

• Proposed wording for OSC stance: The proposed wording for the committee's stance was drafted and agreed upon for the vote: "The OSC declines commenting on the specifics of any proposal that has not gone through the OSC processes. We encourage any proposers to pursue support through the OSC programs."

• Optionally triage proposals: While not an official committee endorsement process, it was agreed that individual committee members could optionally triage the external proposals asynchronously to identify if any might be suitable for the OSC's existing support frameworks and help orient those proposers.

• Handling previously reviewed proposals: For proposals that had already gone through an OSC process (like Fusion and Rewards Calculation), the decision was to either abstain from commenting or state that they had gone through the process and were not accepted at that time. The specific wording for this was to be determined.

Topic	Discussion	Action Items
Welcome and Quorum	Meeting started with attendees joining. Quorum was reached with five participants present.	None
Review of Budget Proposal Reviews Deadline	Jonathan asked for clarification on the deadline for reviewing budget proposals, noting he hadn't reviewed the full list. Terence stated some reviews were due within 3 hours for presentation in other workshops that day.	None
Prioritization of Reviews for Today's Calls	Discussion around which proposals needed immediate review for the workshops happening later. Proposals flagged for Research, Governance, Support, and "No Category" were identified as needing review for today's calls.	Attendees encouraged to prioritize reviewing proposals highlighted in orange in the shared document for today's workshops.
Volunteer Time for Reviews	Pedro and Jonathan volunteered to stay longer to work on the reviews needing immediate attention.	Pedro and Jonathan to potentially stay longer to assist with urgent reviews.
Tool for Sharing Information (ClickUp vs. Screenshot)	Terence was putting information into ClickUp following established process. Pedro was using a screenshot from agenda preparation for readability. Agreed to use the simpler version for the call.	Terence to continue using ClickUp for process; Pedro to use screenshot for call readability.
Formal Meeting Start	Pedro waited for quorum to formally start the meeting and orient attendees, especially new joiners.	None
Christian's Absence	Noted that Christian was out of office due to a direct care function, with potential weekend commitments.	None
Open Source Committee Related Budget Proposals	Overview of the document listing proposals submitted that align with the Open Source Committee. The need to produce a quick review report for each was highlighted.	Review and provide feedback on proposals submitted that are relevant to the Open Source Committee.
Due Dates for Specific Proposals	Terence clarified which proposals were up for discussion/presentation in the workshops happening later today, emphasizing the need for initial reviews. These were highlighted in orange in the shared document.	Attendees to focus initial review efforts on the orange-highlighted proposals for today's workshops.
Misunderstanding on Review Scope	Jonathan initially thought reviews were only for "core" related proposals, not the broader list. Terence clarified the scope based on proposals where "open source" was explicitly mentioned.	Clarification provided on the scope of proposals requiring review by the committee.
Developer Advocate Program Update	Pedro mentioned there's feedback already provided by some committee members on this, and links were shared. It was noted that this is not a priority for today's discussion but feedback is still needed.	Committee members who haven't provided feedback on the Developer Advocate Program are encouraged to do so asynchronously.
Async Meetings for Committee Work	Terence apologized for not scheduling a dedicated async meeting this week but committed to scheduling them on off-weeks from regular committee meetings in the future to facilitate Q2 work.	Terence to schedule async meetings on weeks without regular committee meetings.
Committee Elections	Pedro highlighted that information about committee elections and candidates is available on Discord channels (internal and public). Encouraged committee members and applicants to engage.	Committee members encouraged to look out for and engage with election campaign information on Discord. Applicants encouraged to attend calls and engage in public channels.
Open Source Strategy Document Review	Discussion on the existing Open Source Strategy document, its history (ratified April last year), and the goal of reviewing and potentially revising it. The core graphic remains a guiding light. Input from previous surveys and interviews are inputs for revision.	Review the shared Open Source Strategy document and provide input/suggestions for revision, potentially asynchronously.
Rationale for Revising the Strategy	Adam questioned the need to revise a strategy that hasn't been fully implemented. Sandip suggested reviewing goals and metrics, particularly considering what has been achieved and what is still relevant, especially with decentralized governance in place. Adam felt revisiting was premature given lack of action on the current strategy.	Committee members to consider the current goals and metrics in the strategy document and their relevance/achievement status.
Status of 2024 Goals	Acknowledged that the budget process in Q4 2024 impacted the focus on achieving the previously set goals. It was noted that the 2024 goals were not met.	Acknowledge that 2024 goals were not fully met due to focus on the budget process.
Approach to Updating Goals	Discussion on how to handle the unmet goals from 2024 when updating the strategy. Suggestions included combining unmet goals or carrying them forward. Terence suggested combining unmet goals and setting a realistic timeline (Q3/Q4 2025) for them, potentially adding new goals like developer experience and the paid open source model.	Consider how to incorporate unmet 2024 goals into a revised strategy, potentially combining them or extending their timeline. Discuss adding new goals like developer experience and the paid open source model.
Acknowledging Past Failures	Jonathan suggested creating a separate document to review previously set goals and acknowledge failures before revising the strategy, providing context for the updates.	Consider creating a document reviewing past goals and their achievement status to inform strategy revisions.
Process for Budget Proposal Review Assigned to OSC	Confusion and frustration expressed regarding the process where proposals target the Open Source budget and the OSC is asked to review them on short notice, outside of the committee's established processes. Concerns about being mandated work as unpaid volunteers.	Clarify the process and expectations for the OSC's role in reviewing budget proposals submitted outside of the committee's direct processes.
OSC Stance on Endorsing Proposals	Adam proposed a committee vote to not endorse any budget items submitted outside of the OSC's own proposed budget process, advocating for a blanket neutral stance. This was discussed as a way to direct proposers to the OSC's established frameworks (contribution ladder, maintainer retainer, etc.).	Committee members to vote on a proposed stance: the OSC declines commenting on the specifics of any proposal that has not gone through the OSC processes and encourages proposers to pursue support through the OSC programs. This vote to be conducted asynchronously on the OSC internal Discord channel.
Handling Proposals That Went Through OSC Process	Discussed how to handle proposals (like Fusion and Rewards Calculation) that had previously gone through an OSC process but were not accepted. Agreed to abstain from commenting on these specifically or state that they had gone through the process and were not accepted at the time.	Determine the specific comment or action for proposals that have previously gone through an OSC review process.
Triage of Proposals for OSC Frameworks	Pedro suggested, in addition to the blanket stance, that individual committee members could optionally triage the non-endorsed proposals to identify if any might be a good fit for the OSC's support frameworks and orient the submitters accordingly. This is a triage, not a review or endorsement.	Individual OSC members can optionally triage the list of non-endorsed proposals to identify potential fits for OSC programs and provide orientation to proposers asynchronously.