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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Last updated