😵‍💫(11/06/2025) Meeting Minutes

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)	Term
Elaine Cardenas	Yes	Chair	Y	April 2026
Terence ‘Tex’ McCutcheon	Yes	Secretary	N	N/A
Christian Taylor	Yes	SME	N	N/A
P. Lucas	Yes	Member	Y	October 2025
Adam Dean	Yes	Member	Y	October 2025
Arnaud Bailly	No	Member	Y	April 2026
Georg Link	Yes	Member	Y	April 2026
Jonathan Kelly	Yes	Member	Y	October 2025
Sebastian Pabon	Yes	Member	Y	October 2025
Philip DiSarro	No	Member	Y	April 2026
Empty Seat	No	Member	Y	April 2026

Community/Other Attendees

• Dan Baruka

• Uche Obasi

Recording: Open Source Committee (Intersect) - 2025/11/06 - Recording

Transcript: Open Source Committee (Intersect) - 2025/11/06 - Transcript

Chat Transcript: Open Source Committee Meeting – 2025/11/06 – Chat Transcript

Intros

Christian: Head of Open Source Office, Intersect, OS SME Tex: Open Source Program Manager, Intersect Staff, Open Source Committee Secretary Adam: OSC, TSC Intersect, CIP Editors, DripDropz, LLC Arnaud: OSC Member, CF Elaine: newly elected OSC, Aira corporation CTO Georg: Bitergia Johnny: Non-Custodial Co-Management SysOps Engineer (Tech Janitor) for 3 Mainnet Cardano SPO Clients. Keystone Ambassador. Voting Seat Member on Technical Steering Committee and Open Source Committee. Lucas: OSC Chair, 45B.io(SMB onboarding) Sebastian: OSC, Gimbalabs, contributor, Andamio co-founder. Philip: tbd

Agenda 11.06.25

• Nominate Chair & Vice Chair

• Discuss Charter

• Open Forum

Decisions/Actions

Decisions

• Meeting Cadence: The Open Source Committee (OSC) meeting cadence is officially switching; there will be no meeting next week, and the next meeting will be in two weeks.

• Maintainer Retainer Program (MRP) Eligibility Amendment: The committee voted to amend the MRP criteria for non-Intersect owned repositories (community projects) to allow one of the two maintainer spots to be held by the initial creator/founder, provided they are not receiving other funding specifically for maintenance (Catalyst funding for innovation is permitted).

• Google Summer of Code (GSoC) Program: A motion was filed to drop the GSoC program from the OSC budget for 25/26 and return the funds to the Treasury. This will be voted on asynchronously via Discord as a quorum was not maintained.

• Project Support Services (PSS) Budget: A motion was filed to keep the PSS program and budget for the full term (until June 2026), with any unused funds to be returned to the Treasury at the end of the budget cycle. This will be voted on asynchronously via Discord.

• MRP Interview Start: The committee agreed that they can start the interview process for the MRP applicants without a specific threshold of committee members having reviewed all applications.

Actions

• Alert Developer Advocates: Alert the Developer Advocates team about the new meeting cadence (no meeting next week, next is in two weeks).

• Developer Advocates Update: Dan's update is pushed to the next call (in two weeks).

• Add MRP Interview Question: Jonathan's suggestion to include a question on the applicant's familiarity and confidence with the repository's programming language is to be added to the MRP interview template.

• File Motions for Discord Vote: Terence was asked to file the two motions (GSoC cancellation and PSS budget retention) on Discord for an asynchronous committee vote.

• Identify Interview Threshold: The "passing threshold" (average score) for candidates to move on to the MRP interview stage needs to be located (likely in the internal Discord chat).

• Commercialization Working Group Status: Christian will put a steady hand on the Commercialization Working Group to either move forward with a current, limited scope or put a motion forward to drop or significantly reduce that budget as well.

Topic	Discussion	Notes
Maintainer Retainer Program (MRP) Evals/Opinions	Christian noted the need for maintainer evaluations, opinions on incubation requests, and HL's closing opinions.	Async vote in Discord was mentioned, but its validity was questioned due to the six-month re-application window for rejected requests.
Incubation Requests Reconsideration Period	Discussion centered on maintaining a hard time-based factor (e.g., six-month window) for rejected incubation requests to limit back-and-forth and manage the volunteer committee's bandwidth.	Christian suggested a "no" decision would discourage similar future requests, which would be positive.
Travel Confirmation for Summit	Terence, Georg, and Sebastian confirmed their travel readiness for the Berlin conference.	Georg and Sebastian confirmed they would see others in Berlin.
Meeting Cadence Adjustment	Elaine initially misinterpreted the meeting schedule, believing it should have been skipped due to the Cardano conference. Adam clarified the meeting was moved to today (Monday, November 6th) to avoid the conference week.	The next scheduled meeting will be in two weeks; there is no meeting next week. Developer Advocates were to be alerted.
Developer Advocates Update	Dan was not prepared to give an update and requested to push it to the next call, as the update cadence is typically every two weeks.	Update pushed to the next scheduled meeting in two weeks.
MRP Status and Process Document Review	Elaine asked for review of the MRP process document. Adam found it good to go. Jonathan noted an unfinished sentence. Terence stressed the importance of comments, urging members to ensure the document is sufficient for an interviewer role.	The document was reviewed, and Jonathan's comment regarding a potentially incomplete sentence was noted.
MRP Applicant Review Status	Jonathan, Arno, and Sebastian have put in scores/commentary on the applicants. Christian reported 19-20 total programs (11 core, 29 community projects) and 11 maintainer applicants.	A table summarizes applicant interest per repository to gauge competition and guide interview conversations.
Clarification on Applicant Repository Assignment	Adam was confused about the assignment process. Jonathan clarified they are not assigning but using the interview to raise competition levels and offer less competitive repos as alternatives.	The process is intended to give applicants a better chance of being assigned based on experience, as most haven't contributed to their preferred repos.
Eligibility of Founders/Original Creators for MRP	Adam raised concern that the current structure may disincentivize community projects by excluding founding members who receive catalyst funding for innovation but not maintenance. Jonathan cited an example of a co-founder no longer receiving funding.	Motion carried (Adam, seconded by Jonathan, Elaine, Georg): Amend the MRP for non-Intersect owned repositories to allow one of the two maintainer spots to be held by the initial creator, provided they are not receiving other funds specifically for maintenance (innovation funding is permitted).
MRP Interview Threshold	The committee discussed what minimum number of scores is needed before starting interviews, noting the Developer Advocate program only had two full scorers. Jonathan stated the MRP currently has three scorers.	Consensus was reached that interviews could begin without a set scoring threshold due to the subsequent project-level interview stage.
MRP Interview Question Amendment	Jonathan suggested adding a question about the applicant's familiarity and confidence with the repository's programming language (e.g., Haskell) to the interview template, as not all applicants have relevant language experience.	Elaine agreed to add the question to the interview template. Adam shared an experience managing a multi-language repo despite his lack of Haskell knowledge.
Google Summer of Code (GSoC) Program Status	Christian explained the GSoC proposal was based on an MLABS-type proposal for logistics (coordinating with Indian universities), not curriculum. The original OSC facilitator is no longer available. The budget has a one-year timeframe for contract work.	Motion (Adam, seconded by Georg): Drop the GSoC program and return the funds to the Treasury to focus on a smaller, more executable work package to ensure successful delivery of current programs.
Project Support Services (PSS) Budget	Terence mentioned PSS was a catchall and discussed the option of directing unspent PSS funds to administrative costs or returning them to the Treasury. Christian noted the limited scope and financial commitment of current requests.	Motion (Adam, seconded by Jonathan): Keep the PSS program and budget for the full term, with any unused funds returned to the Treasury at the end of the budget cycle (June 2026).
Commercialization Working Group	Christian noted low engagement and proposed putting a motion forward to drop the working group's budget or drastically reduce it (e.g., to $25k) and move the future budget to the Product Committee.	The group will focus on executing the "Commercial Open Source Software" program with an existing vendor. Christian will work to steady the working group's scope or table its budget.