18th June 25

Meeting Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-VUJz2NBg

Attendees:

First name	Last name	Position	Voting Member
Kris	Bennett	Observer	N
Lorenzo	Bruno	Intersect - Strategy & Architecture	N
Duncan	Coutts	TSC Member (WellTyped)	Y
Neil	Davies	TSC Member (PN Solutions)	Y
Markus	Gufler	TSC Member (Cardano Foundation)	Y
Kevin	Hammond	TSC Chair	Y
Benjamin	Hart	TSC Member (MLabs)	Y
Pedro	Lucas	Observer	N
Terence	McCutcheon	OSC Secretary	N
Sebastian	Nagel	TSC Member (IOG)	Y
Alex	Seregin	Observer	N
Duncan	Soutar	TSC Secretary	N
Christian	Taylor	Intersect - Opensource Head	N

Minutes:

Agenda Item	Discussion	Actions / Decisions
1. Apologies	Nicholas, Johnny, Alex
2. Next week’s Timeslot dedicated to go through Value Proposition Map	This is a review of the value proposition board for 2030 vision and roadmap - with GMC & Product Committee - agreement from the TSC to do this	Action: Lorenzo to share Miro Board with TSC Action: Lorenzo to check availability of Product and GMC & confirm slot
3. Request to assess whether budget proposals involve change at L1 or L2	Request from Intersect Core Services for the TSC to flag which of the technical projects approved in the budget impact the L1 or L2	Action: Kevin to review list Action: Duncan to share Technical Review Policy and others with TSC
4. Update from release meeting	KH: Node v10.5 (Primarily Network Changes) is expected to be released in approx 3 weeks. 10.6 will then focus on Ledger improvements. KH: Dev Teams appreciate the direction on HF from TSC
5. Technical Working Groups - Session for TSC with TWGs to clarify what TSC purpose is	KH: These are the developers teams such as ledger, Hydra and Consensus. All technical teams that have been running for last year or so. CT: TWG are tied to Opensource policy requiring open calls - Christian to share KH: TWG nominally report to TSC but in practice are quite autonomous CT: Confirmed that TSC is official escalation path for these TWGs TM: TWG have generally been more autonomous - offers help to ensure working groups are operating as they should do. MG: Don’t believe that any TWGs have done anything “wrong” or in a “hidden” way - however is querying the remit of the TSC with regards to TWGs and their relationships and ways of working. TM: Shared the policy for TWGs & TSC: https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/groups-overview/groups-overview/technical-working-groups DS: Propose having a session with TWGs on a recurring monthly basis TM: Confirmed that major decisions should be ratified by the TSC ND: Believes that progress and issues should be propagated up more publicly KH: Believes that TSC should be utilising Cardano Updates more DS: Perhaps TSC needs to request TWGs on updating regularly LB: Suggests the TSC write up their ways of working and share with TWG. Suggests committee members should join TWGs as needed. MG: Request is not to add any unrequired bureaucracy. Wants exchanges to be very light touch. Uses example that last year a TWG made a significant change without informing which had a large impact on SPOs which required late change. Needs to have a more prescribed workflow. KH: Clarified example of a design change that had unintended consequences. Suggests that regular open design meetings are an option to address this. MG: Need to understand if what he is proposing is practically feasible. Talks about how the lack of remit is impacting creating of framework. KH: Had agreed to hold open meeting. TM: Project Owner meeting is currently still held under IOG, perhaps this should move under Intersect when the TWG report into TSC? Opensource - no formal request for OSC to conduct Technical Oversight of projects - should be clarified by Intersect what is the request. There will be an upcoming decision regarding the forking for the Cardano Serialisation Library.	Action: Duncan S to organise open call with ledger team regarding De-Serialisation. Action: Duncan to add TWG & TSC to Remit RACI Doc
6. Expand Hydra TWG into L2 TWG - Sebastian	SN: Has been chairing Hydra TWG. Looking to be more open and interacting with users. Have had a number of other vendors who have built on Hydra. Looking for a new chair as time clashes with TSC. Now have L2 projects seeking funding. Does it make sense to change from a Hydra TWG to an L2 TWG instead? KH: Believes this makes sense but it may be a broader group than the TWG. May need special focus groups on things like Hydra or Midgard etc SN: Understand that individual projects will have their own TWG but a broader umbrella group for L2 could have a wider focus. KH: Clarified that TWG are expected to be self-organising TM: Chairs of TWGs should attend TSC to give updates on a regular basis	Action: Speak to Ryan for status update on Wallets WG. Decision: Hydra WG to migrate to L2 WG - 4/6 voted in favour Action: Alex Moser to execute Decision
7. Ongoing Discussion on Remit	LB: 2030 vision in process - being socialised and need input and consultation by the TSC. Then goes onchain. Product TSC GMC to work together to put on chain. Next year’s Budget can then be informed by the Roadmap. TM: Committee collaboration board shared yesterday to give a high level of visibility across the TSC, GMC & TMC for collaboration. MG: Have not received invite? The inputs heavily input. Does not fit in context of budget. DC: Question for Lorenzo. Does anyone on Product committee worry that this Roadmap work is pointless given last year’s budget process? LB: Acknowledges above. Product Committee is not deciding but acting as a “collection point” from the community will. Then the community (DReps) should be voting inline with this roadmap. If the community agree with the vision then it can’t be forced but should show community will. DC: Therefore this roadmap or vision process is expected to achieve community buyin to create social pressure on Vendors and DReps to put projects that adhere to this. LB: Expected that on a yearly basis this 2030 vision will be created into something actionable on a yearly basis. It is not “Product Decision” DC: What happens if community asks to “go-left” but vendors submit projects that “go-right?” DC: Should we incorporate this approach within the TSC? KH: Actual delivery takes a lot of detailed discussion LB: Discussion last year was at too high a level. TSC should be a key part about making this actionable. ND: This sounds like a Request for Quotes or Request for Proposals. Otherwise what happens if the proposals that come in do not align with these request? LB: Does not look at delivery only a common direction. DC: However whatever is created needs to be deliverable? LB: Product committee is responsible for trying get broad direction initially, then can look at the the delivery. TM: Still have other committees that need to be collaborated with. Intersect doesn’t need to have all the answers within Cardano. This is the Intersect budget. BH: If we do get community buy-in on a roadmap but get contradictory proposals or if large section of the roadmap are ignored would this point to a failure of the process? - It should be the goal of Intersect to build such a process that avoids this. KH: Where there are no proposals put BH: If TSC can’t convince Intersect board that RFP process is right process then some other process is needed to reduce this risk. LB: Agree that the above would be a failure state DC: Key here is whether intersect want a community led process of a vendor led process. Last year did not represent value for money for the community. DS: Acknowledges that having a roadmap to compare vendor budget proposals against would be a huge improvement over the recent budget process. Believes that Intersect committees