1st April 2025 (with Intersect Board)

The session was run in the related miro board.

📽️ The meeting recording can be found here. 📄 The meeting transcript can be found here. 📽️ The recording of the open session can be found here.

Participants

Position	POC
Secretary	Lorenzo Bruno
Chair	Samuel Leathers
Vice-chair	Kyle Solomon
Voting seat	James Meidinger
Voting seats	Zachary Soesbee
Voting seats	Kyle Solomon
Voting seats	Naushad Fouze
Voting seats	Alexandre Maaza
Board member	Adam Rusch
Board member	Kavinda Kariyapperuma
SME	Fergie Miller
Observer	Kenric Nelson
Observer	Mercy F

Absentees

Position	POC
Voting seat	Juan Sierra

Agenda

• Review actions

  • Chair rotation documented in gitbook

  • First SPO focus group call update

  • Florida International University workshop update

• Intersect Board Q&A

  • Define actions for next SPO call

  • Align on SpacePlace 2030 vision Workshop

  • Align on Cardano Over Coffee

  • Book next remote 2030 vision workshop

  • Discuss Paris Workshop

  • Discuss Berlin Workshop

• 2030 vision process

• 2025 budget

Updates

Q&A with Intersect Board

1. What is the board’s view on the role of the Product Committee?

   • Asked by: Kyle Solomon

   • Response (Adam Rusch): The board sees the Product Committee as strategic contributors and subject matter experts in defining Intersect’s vision and roadmap.

2. How can committee silos and poor communication be addressed?

   • Asked by: Samuel Leathers, Zachary Soesbee

   • Response (Adam & Zach): Acknowledgment of poor inter-committee communication. There’s a need for structured, transparent, and regular communication loops across committees and with the board.

3. Why was a joint TSC/Product Committee session canceled last minute?

   • Asked by: Alexandre Maaza

   • Response (Adam Rusch): Apologized, explaining it was a miscommunication—board believed low attendance would make the session unproductive. Promised to take responsibility and improve clarity.

4. Why was there a sudden pivot in the budget process during the consultation phase?

   • Asked by: Alexandre Maaza

   • Response (Adam Rusch): The pivot was a response to broad dissatisfaction from members and committees about the lack of feedback channels during budget creation. The board instructed staff to develop a more interactive mechanism (e.g., tooling for DReps to provide feedback).

5. Why wasn’t the community involved earlier in budget planning, and who participated in the budget task force?

   • Asked by: Alexandre Maaza

   • Response (Adam Rusch): Couldn’t explain why community involvement didn’t happen earlier; acknowledged a reactive approach to public criticism. Promised to follow up and disclose the list of participants in the budget task force workshop as was promised earlier.

6. Can some budgets be prioritized to keep momentum (e.g., product-related vs. more controversial ones)?

   • Asked by: James Meidinger

   • Response (Adam Rusch): Yes, possible. Different budgets may proceed at different paces based on readiness and community support. Committees may get autonomy in determining their timeline.

7. Will the board support clearer definitions of committee responsibilities before assigning new ones?

   • Asked by: Kyle Solomon

   • Response (Adam Rusch): Agreed and committed to ongoing dialogue rather than imposing undefined tasks.

Intersect Board actions

• Improve communications between board and committees

  • Adam committed to making board–committee engagement more regular and structured, not just one-off meetings.

• Ensure disclosure of budget workshop participants

  • Adam acknowledged that it had been promised to Alexandre and others and committed to follow up on this with the board.

• Endorsed committee autonomy on budget readiness

  • Agreed with James Meidinger that committees that are ready should proceed while others continue preparations, instead of waiting for consensus across all groups.

2030 vision creation

• Agreed on time and structure for the next SPO call

• SpacePlace Workshop: Book for Thursday 10th 3pm EST (7pm UTC)

• Cardano Over Coffee: Book 30 mins to share the process, invite people to workshop, and share survey

• Next remote workshop: Book it for Tuesday 15th April extending the open session to 1.5 hours

• Paris Workshop: evaluate if we can get a bigger venue

---

Notes and action from the Open Call with Intersect Board members

Key questions and answers

1. What is the board’s view on the role of the Product Committee? Answer: Gerard acknowledged confusion around committee roles and said the name "Product Committee" seems misaligned—it focuses more on research than product roadmap. He views Product and TSC (Technical Steering Committee) as complementary: Product should prioritize what users want and market direction, while TSC focuses on technical feasibility and sequencing.

2. Is the ISC (Intersect Steering Council) effective in facilitating communication? Answer: Several participants criticized the ISC as ineffective—seen as self-congratulatory or unproductive. Suggestions included skipping ISC and establishing direct board-to-committee chair communications.

3. Would a quarterly or monthly direct Q&A with the board work better? Answer: Yes. Monthly sessions were proposed during the transition phase (due to current “rudderless” state), potentially shifting to quarterly once stability is achieved.

Actions

• Gerard Moroney (Board Member) committed to:

  • Engaging more directly with committees.

  • Ensuring board minutes and committee meeting notes are published in a timely manner.

  • Participating in a listening tour to rebuild trust and confidence.

• Jack Briggs (Intersect executive director) committed to:

  • Organizing a monthly meeting between the Product Committee and technical teams.

Outcomes & Recommendations

N/A