| Agenda Item | Discussion Points | Actions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Resignation of Nicholas Clarke | Nick 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 Proposal | Closed 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 Proposals | KH: 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 Contract | ND: 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 Library | This 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 Committee | Proposal to increase Plutus mem unit limits Proposal to change Plutus v2 cost model KH: Push this to next week’s meeting |