# April 13 2026
## Attendees:
| Name | Attendance | Role | Voting Seat (Y/N) |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------------- | ----------------- |
| [Simo Simovic](mailto:simo.simovic@intersectmbo.org) | Yes | Secretary | N |
| Jack Briggs | No | Executive Director | Y |
| Nick Cook | No | Director - Operations (Interim) | Y |
| Sheldon Hunt | No | Community Member Seat | Y |
| Fred Tanaka | Yes | Community Member Seat | Y |
| Kristijan Kowalsky | No | Community Member Seat | Y |
| Jose Miguel de Gamboa | Yes | Community Member Seat | Y |
| Georg Link | No | OSC Chair | Y |
| Samuel Leathers | No | Product Chair | Y |
| Maureen Wepngogn | Yes | MCC Chair | Y |
| Megan Hess | Yes | CBC Chair | Y |
| Kevin Hammond | Yes | TSC Chair | Y |
| Tim Harrison | No | GMC Chair | Y |
| Nicolas Cerny | Yes | CCC Chair | Y |
| Lorenzo Bruno | Yes | Head of Product & Membership | N |
| Bosko Majdanac | No | Secretary of TSC | N |
| Abhik Nag | Yes | Secretary of MCC | N |
| Lloyd Duhon | No | Secretary of Budget Committee | N |
| Larisa Mcfarlane | Yes | Head of Ecosystem & Community | N |
| Terence McCutcheon | No | Secretary of OSC | N |
| Lara Bonasorte | Yes | Secretary of GMC | N |
| Thomas Lindseth | Yes | Secretary of CCC |
|
### Additional Attendees:
Rand McHenry - Member of the Intersect Board
Ken-Erik Ølmheim - Vice Chair of Civics
Udai Solanki - Vice Chair of OSC
Mike Hornan - Observer
Thiago Nunes - Observer
## Agenda:
* Committee Updates
* Committees Reward
* Protocol parameter discussions
* Committee Elections
* Intersect budget planning and timeline
* Communication accountability and code of conduct processes
## Discussion/Actions
### 1. Opening & Agenda
The meeting opened with attendance confirmation and agenda review. Topics included committee updates, committee rewards (including policy and process questions), protocol parameter discussions, updates on committee elections and budgets, Intersect budget planning and timeline, and governance-related topics such as communication accountability and code of conduct processes.
### 2. Committee Updates
* Technical Steering Committee (TSC) reported continued progress toward the Van Rossum hard fork, with timelines currently unchanged despite issues identified in node version 10.7 (performance issue and memory leak under investigation). Work is ongoing on Plutus cost model updates, expected to be submitted to preview shortly and then mainnet. TSC also continues collaboration with the Product Committee on Vision 2030 KPIs and is beginning early prioritization work for the next ledger era (“Dystra”), including gathering DRep input on future scope.
* Civics Committee confirmed a recent committee member departure and continued progress on its budget proposal, particularly around governance workshops. Work is advancing on the constitutional amendment process, with tooling expected to be finalized and tested by the end of the month. Discussion also highlighted uncertainty around Constitutional Committee minimum size changes, given dependencies on pending parameter changes.
* Growth & Marketing Committee (GMC) shared a shift in approach for the 2026 budget cycle. Instead of a centralized execution budget, the committee has defined a strategic framework (pillars) to guide ecosystem proposals, positioning itself as an advisory body rather than an execution body. The only direct budget request relates to travel (to support participation in key events), with operational costs expected to be handled through the Intersect core budget. The committee is actively coordinating with external initiatives (e.g., Builder DAO) to ensure alignment and avoid duplication.
### 3. Budget Process & Intersect Proposal Update
An update was provided on the 2026 budget process, with the submission window opening later that week and running for approximately three weeks. Proposals will move through feedback and off-chain voting before being consolidated and submitted on-chain in June.
Intersect’s own budget approach has been revised:
* Introduction of a 3% administration fee model, replacing the previous flat-rate structure, enabling an “always-on” administration service that scales with demand
* Reduction in the core Intersect budget request (approx. 6.5M ADA), reflecting removal of administration costs from the base budget
* Continued focus on technical coordination and ecosystem-critical functions, including node coordination and integration work
The need to clearly communicate this model and its long-term obligations to the community was emphasized.
### 4. Committee Rewards (Discussion)
An update was provided on the rollout of the automated committee rewards system, including clarification of the payment cycle (monthly cutoff and batch payment process). It was noted that:
* Rewards are confirmed only until June 2026 under the current budget
* Not all allocated funds have yet been utilized
Discussion focused on:
* The need to review the rewards policy, including effectiveness, incentives, and alignment with outputs
* Questions around ADA price impact on reward value
* How to handle unclaimed rewards and remaining budget, with views expressed that unused funds should likely return to the treasury, while also considering potential policy adjustments (e.g., role differentiation such as vice chairs)
It was agreed that this topic requires a dedicated follow-up discussion.
### 5. Committee Elections Update
A reminder was shared that committee election applications close on Friday, with voting starting the following week. Members were encouraged to actively promote strong candidates and leverage direct outreach to ensure high-quality participation, particularly given the transition to two-year committee terms.
### 6. Governance & Communication Accountability
Concerns were raised regarding lack of responsiveness in public communication channels, particularly where committee members have not replied to community questions over extended periods. It was emphasized that committee members have a responsibility to engage and respond, especially given their elected roles.
It was noted that:
* Updated roles and responsibilities now include clearer expectations around participation
* Secretaries may play a stronger role in ensuring responses are captured and communicated
This was also highlighted as an input into the broader committee rewards policy review.
### 7. Code of Conduct & Formal Complaints Process
A broader discussion was held on handling code of conduct breaches and formal complaints, including recent experiences involving inappropriate behavior and personal threats.
Key points:
* A formal process exists via the Board, including suspension, review, and potential membership revocation
* Current guidance is fragmented across bylaws, code of conduct, and Robert’s Rules
* There is no single, clearly documented end-to-end process for handling complaints
Additional considerations included:
* Need for clearer processes and documentation
* Importance of fairness and due process
* Challenges of managing behavior across different platforms (e.g., Discord vs external channels)
* The need to better protect members and maintain a safe participation environment
It was agreed this is a high-priority topic requiring:
* Short-term clarity for current cases
* Longer-term improvements, including potential updates to the code of conduct and governance framework
***
### 8. Actions & Next Steps
* Prepare for the budget submission window and community engagement
* Continue alignment across proposals and communicate clearly to stakeholders
* Schedule a dedicated discussion on committee rewards policy review (including unclaimed funds and incentive effectiveness)
* Develop a clearer, consolidated process for code of conduct complaints and enforcement
* Consider improvements to communication expectations and accountability mechanisms
---
# Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:
```
GET https://steeringcommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/april-13-2026.md?ask=
```
The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.