30th April 25

Recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpqe6Fovs4k

Attendees:

First name	Last name	Role	Voting Member
Kevin	Hammond	TSC Chair (IOE)	Y
Neil	Davies	TSC Member (PN Solutions)	Y
Matt	Davis	Intersect - Tech Ops Lead
Markus	Gufler	TSC Member (Cardano Foundation)	Y
Benjamin	Hart	TSC Member (MLabs)	Y
Jonathan	Kelly	TSC Member	Y
Ricky	Rand IOHK	IOE General Manager - Observer
Duncan	Soutar	TSC Secretary
Christian	Taylor	Intersect - Opensource Head
Adam	Rusch	Intersect Board
Kavinda	Kariyapperuma	Intersect Board
Jack	Briggs	Intersect Exec

Minutes:

Agenda Item	Discussion	Actions / Decisions
Apologies: Adam Dean
1. Intersect Board statement	"KH: Expressed concerns with current Intersect Budget process for being chaotic, potentially unconstitutional and failing to address required gaps in the core development and maintenance. AR: Acknowledges that Intersect Internal communication channels have not been good. Highlighting concerns that have been raised by the TSC to the board that have not been answered satisfactorily. AR: Highlights that he did not feel Intersect could support TSC proposal. No discussion between board and TSC on their budget prior. AR: The process for creating the comms was started as soon as the TSC budget was released (several weeks ago) AR: His understanding that other board members tried to reach out to the TSC. AR: Board was not receiving all of the information that the secretary of the board was receiving. ND: Feels that not enough attempt was made by the board to approach the TSC on the process. Highlighting that three meetings between the TSC and Ger were cancelled in a row. No other attempts by the board to contact the TSC, therefore not giving the TSC an opportunity to discuss the board’s decision. Challenges accusation that TSC did not inform Intersect. AR: If any statement he made on X were too harsh then he apologises AR: Was this a unanimous decision? ND: It was at the point of submission ND: Believed that DS: Did any other committees share their budget with the board? AR: No they didn’t but TSC’s take on additional responsibilities for Intersect *** Check recording**** KH: It is necessary to be able to replace a vendor in the event of failure. Understand that current process proposed by Intersect will enable this. KH: Highlighting that a number of vendors have subsequently come forward to the TSC highlighting essential maintenance. DS: Pointed out that the TSC was expected to put forward a budget that “filled gaps” however in Intersect’s process there was less that 24 hours between budget submissions closing and the first budget workshop meanin that it was not possible to submit a TSC budget for essential work not covered by submissions. DS: Also pointing out that the facilitation of the above will need some sort of RFP process to facilitate. JB: Budget info action will be needed for any gaps not identified in current budget. **Update** BH: **Check notes** Raising motivation for TSC’s approach JK: Highlighting that he would have preferred that this conversation had happened a week ago. AR: This is a huge undertaking. Acknowledged expertise within TSC. Decision was taken in the context of the challenges including leadership challenges within Intersect. Bard did not feel it could take on the responsibilities within the TSC budget. KH: Highlighting that a lot of the same work will need to be done but will now be done in a far less structured way. AR: Vote for IO proposals (and other vendors) takes away responsibilities from Intersect. AR: Highlighting that Board and TSC acted in good faith JK: Pointed out that other board members could have reached out. Pointed out that RR had not raised concerns about IOE not engaging with an RFP. RR: Conducting an RFP process would be significantly more effort and work that the current system KH: This process has far less structure and scrutiny than previous. AR: Not sure how to fill these gaps and manage this risk. Looking for Jack and Nick to deliver a process to enable this to happen. AR sees responsibilities as: adhering to charter of organisation **Check this in transcript**. Apologises for the process. Highlighting that this was not a ‘punishment’ for the TSC. AR: General Intersect budget will cover the TSC needs. KH: Highlighting that integration costs have not been considered within many budgets. ND: States opinion that gaps in proposals put forward for core puts continuity for Cardano at risk. KH: Will take Jack up on offer to meet on this. KK: I believe that this discourse is good, and really appreciate all of you sharing these concerns. I do understand that there have been clear miscommunications and gaps with the information flow. All concerns are valid as we are all here to make sure the ecosystem, we all love gets the best set of solutions possible with all of us working together, I would like to take these points raised today back to the board as well."
2. Update from IOE Delivery Assurance Meeting	JK: 10.3.1 release: tech debt, denial of service improvements, pre reqs for genesis rollout Draft rollout of 10.4 with LMDB solution which in testing - reducing the amount of memory load. Action (Intersect): Share published documents via channels including genesis documentation KES Agent also progressed Upcoming: Governance action for increasing memory stream limits, Daedalus Updates. LMDB rollout initiated. TBC KES Agent rollout. ND: Documentation - noted that main issue with documentation is more intransaction layer rather than settlement layer. Queries whether IOE have technical capability within the team to carry out this documentation.	Action [IOE & Delivery Assurance] pull together 6 week checkpoint documentation for TSC to approve payment figure point
3. Formal sign-off on Peras milestone for Payment to Modus Tweag	DS: This has already been signed off asynchronously No objections within meeting	Duncan to inform Delivery Assurance that oayment can be approved on reciept of Milestone Acceptance Form from Tweag
4. Summary Feedback on the IOE and Tweag Proposals	KH: Provided in GovTool. Highlighting that this is constructive criticism to help enhance proposals ahead of approval and contract negotiation. JK: Highlighting that TSC was repeatedly requested for this analysis from community members KH: Pointed out that thorough analysis was not manageable in the timescales provided. KH: Many of the proposals within core that have had negative feedback are related to the proposals not being core and therefore a Tooling Budget would be more appropriate for these proposals KH: Highlighted that TSC community sentiment was measured against the TSC’s own community survey back in November.
5. StarStream have asked to present their work to TSC		Action: KH: Approached by StarStream to get them to present at next week’s TSC
6. Scaltus (sp?) has raised the issue of maintenance support for their Catalyst-developed tooling	-Should this be under the OSC rather than TSC. There is a general question of how to progress beyond Catalyst KH: Raised issue of catalyst support for tooling. Suggests that this should sit within OSC unless it is related to Core infrastructure. JK: *** Review Recording*** CH: Agreement
7. KES to Intersect	This is for Intersect migrating the Repo to Intersect. ND: May need an open tendering process **check recording** JK: Strong believe that this is core.	Decision: Agreed to migrate ES Agent repo tO Intersect (Passed unanimously)