# 17th April 25 **Attendees:** | First name | Last name | Role | Voting Member | | ---------- | --------- | ------------------------------- | ------------- | | Kevin | Hammond | TSC Chair (IOE) | Y | | Adam | Dean | SC Vice-Chair | 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 | | | Duncan | Coutts | Welltyped - Observer | | **Meeting Minutes:**
Agenda ItemDiscussion PointsActions
1. Resignation of Nicholas ClarkeNick resigned from the TSC as of 15/04/25
Proposed vote of thanks to Nick for his time and service over 6 Months - endorsed by all		Public Announcement on Nick’s Resignation and thanks from TSC - Duncan to draft
2. Reaction to Budget ProposalClosed session to draft responses to queries on submitted on proposal
Action: Need to determine and highlight overlaps with other submitted proposals
KH: Expects that TSC budget can align with IOE budget but within an alternative framework for delivery
ND: Budget proposal from TSC is an intention to create a framework that allows delivery momentum to be maintained
KH: TSC would like express their concerns at the state of communication within Intersect with regards to meeting sharing following the Board meeting with Intersect Members on 16/04/25
Meeting with Ger currently being rescheduled.
Query from Yuta: Would IOE be willing engage with TSC’s budget should it be successful?
RR: No information has been shared with him that IOE would pull out if TSC budget were successful
KH: Several proposals submitted would require further information to be able to form a contract
AD: to share his reflections on the Budget Process
KH: Suggestion for follow-on session on TSC proposal with DReps. Request 15 minutes to give an outline on Thursday’s session

[Action]: Coordinate to support for Friday 3am call on TSC budget - Duncan
[Action]: Kevin to reshare Poll to reschedule meeting with Ger. All committee members to respond.
3. Reviewing Core Budget ProposalsKH: Concern at the level of time required to assess proposals properly. More time than has been provided. Ideally the ability to engage with subject matter experts would be available.
ND: Concern that proposals submitted have not identified risks
Proposal: TSC may initially draft a series of queries against each proposal to help guide DReps to scrutinise proposals with suppliers.
JK: Highlighting the balance between bureaucracy and need to prevent unnecessary chaotic submissions
[Action] Identify proposals that are considered core
[Action] Determine framework by which proposals will be judged
[Action] Review proposals that have been submitted.
[Action]: KH to provide a framework for analysing bids to the TSC
4. IOG Maintenance ContractND: Drawn concern that significant changes have been made to the IOE maintenance contract without TSC consultation.
ND: Current version does not allow value for money to be demonstrated to the community
ND: Query as to whether TSC should continue to let its name to the maintenance contract
JK: Changes between original and revised contract -
- Doubled in length and cost
- Removed named people from contract
- Removed fiscal reporting/auditing requirements

DS: Concern that contract in current 12-month form will be in conflict with both IOE & TSC budget submissions
KH: Query as to where funding comes from for back payment of maintenance contract. Does this back payment need to be made as a budget submission?
RR: Does the TSC agree that IOE has been delivering as per the maintenance contract (which currently remains unsigned)
ND: Agreed that from the end of Jan to present (apart from last 2 weeks which he hasn’t reviewed) that this has operated extremely well and was very pleased with how it was operating.
RR: Insists that changes were made by Intersect rather than IOE.
RR: Is happy for list of names to be added back into contract

KH: Establish whether previous version of contract could be reimplemented
RR: Happy with 6 or 12 month time frame. However 2 (or 4) week termination period would not to be acceptable. 3 months would be agreeable.
RR: Issue with auditing function.
ND: Want to find a mechanism to help provide evidence of value for money to the community

JK: A standardised Framework for Fiscal Reporting needs to be established in order to ensure that there is a transparent, publicly accessible verification of proper allocation of Treasury/Community Funds against agreed upon Contracted works.
[Action] : Series of meetings to be held.
[Action]: To raise this issue with the Intersect Board
5. Project Submission #004: Cardano Serialization LibraryThis is pilot for project incubation:

AD: This library underpins every single DApp so strongly endorses this proposal
AD: Only contention is that this is not a core repository owned by Intersect
ND: Query over alignment and regression testing
BH: Endorse that this is heavily relied on by many developers in the community
JK: Submission was made via OSC budget proposal rather than an individual submission
DC: Highlights difficultly of long term maintenance and thinks brining it under Intersect budget could help address this problem - endore the idea
CT: Will sit under OSC but want the TSC to validate as a “balancing factor”
[Action] Decision needed: Whether this should be taken under Intersect for Tooling
[Action] TSC members to review and make decision
6. Update from Parameter CommitteeProposal to increase Plutus mem unit limits
Proposal to change Plutus v2 cost model
KH: Push this to next week’s meeting