26 November 2025 - Intersect November Meeting
Board Seat
In attendance
1
IOG - Gerard Moroney
Yes
2
EMURGO - Nikhil Joshi
Yes
3
Academia - Professor Steven Lupien
No
4
Membership - Kavinda Kariyapperuma
Yes
5
Membership - Adam Rusch
Yes
6
Membership - Mercy Fordwoo
Yes
7
Membership - Rand McHenry
Yes
Interim Executive Director - Jack Briggs
Yes
Intersect Executive Team - Nick Cook
Yes
Intersect Board Meeting – November Date: November 26, 2025 Location: Virtual
Prof. Steven Lupien sent his apologies and was unable to attend the meeting.
Chair: Kavinda Kariyapperuma
—
Call to Order
Jack Briggs called the meeting to order. Attendance was confirmed and the agenda adopted.
Post-incident review of the mainnet outage
Initial reflections and independent review
Gerard Moroney provided reflections on the recent mainnet incident. He acknowledged several positive outcomes and praised Jack Briggs’ leadership, communication and overall coordination, noting the strong role Intersect played in leading the cross-ecosystem response.
Gerard Moroney highlighted areas for improvement in the incident response. He noted that the initial response involved a large number of participants and periods of unfocused discussion, and referenced suggestions made by two TSC members to use the “poison chain” approach.
It was noted that this suggestion was made in the context of concerns about the feasibility of rapidly coordinating SPO upgrades at scale, which was a reasonable consideration given operational constraints at the time. However, Gerard emphasised that the broader structural implications of such a decision were not sufficiently analysed, including the downstream impact on integrations, ecosystem tooling, and community confidence. He observed that more comprehensive assessment of second-order effects and preparation for ecosystem-wide consequences should form part of future decision-making during incidents.
Gerard reiterated the importance of an independent review led by Intersect to ensure neutrality, capture these lessons, and strengthen decision-making frameworks for future incidents.
Need for stronger leadership and timely reporting
Gerard further emphasised that while the incident ultimately resolved successfully, this outcome was influenced in no small part by the physical co-location of key individuals during the response. He noted that the effectiveness of the coordination benefitted materially from this circumstance, and that the current incident management processes may not yet be sufficiently robust to consistently deliver similar outcomes in less favourable conditions.
He therefore stressed the need for Intersect to continue strengthening its leadership role, incident governance structures, and analytical depth during critical events. He reiterated the importance of delivering an initial public incident report before Christmas, followed by a more detailed report and defined follow-up actions shortly thereafter.
Jack Briggs acknowledged these points and confirmed that they would be reflected in the retrospective and ongoing improvements to incident management processes.
Jack Briggs agreed with the urgency and committed to reinforcing the timeline with Bosko and the retrospective team.
Strengthening incident response processes
Jack noted that the process retrospective is underway and that coordination with partner teams, including Midnight and Shielded, will be strengthened. Midnight was particularly impacted due to its public testnet connection with the preview environment.
Gerard added that further incidents should be expected due to node diversity across different implementations.
Board communication during incidents
The board discussed communication expectations during future incidents.
Adam Rusch noted a gap in official communications on social media.
Nikhil Joshi stressed that the board should receive brief updates at key milestones and at resolution.
Gerard recommended posting interim updates in the board Slack channel and using board members as “force multipliers” to help spread accurate information.
Budget info action proposal for core infrastructure
Overview of the proposal
Jack Briggs presented a budget info action to request circa 70 million ada for a 24 month integration fund for core infrastructure. The fund is designed to support negotiations with Tier 1 partners for oracles, stablecoins, bridges and related tooling. The non-specific design allows flexibility in commercial discussions and enables rapid execution.
Intersect’s role and governance considerations
Intersect would act as the administrator of the fund through the existing smart contract framework. Jack would sit on the steering committee. The process will need to account for the current governance environment, including timing constraints related to the net change limit.
Inclusion of the Midnight Foundation
Nikhil explained the decision to reference the Midnight Foundation in a supportive capacity rather than as a formal co-proposer. This balances collaboration benefits with the need to manage perceptions while maintaining transparency.
Board motion on steering committee representation
To avoid perceived conflicts of interest, Adam Rusch moved that the Intersect Executive Director sit on the steering committee as a non voting, ex officio member. Motion seconded by Gerard Moroney and carried with votes from Kavinda Kariyapperuma, Gerard Moroney, Nikhil Joshi, Mercy Fordwoo and Rand McHenry.
Net change limit proposal
Jack provided an update on the Budget Committee’s recommendation of a new net change limit of 350 million ada over an 18 month period beginning January 5. The rationale will be refined in light of the integration fund proposal.
Organisational structure and people
Structural updates
Jack provided a high level update on Intersect’s operating model, structured into four functional areas: Core, People, Ecosystem and Cardano Technical Coordination.
He explained that responsibilities and reporting lines are being reviewed to ensure clear ownership of key functions such as incident coordination, release management and ecosystem engagement. Some roles and team structures may be adjusted as part of a broader organizational development process. Individual personnel outcomes were not discussed.
Priority capabilities and hiring focus
Intersect has identified several priority capability areas to strengthen, including:
executive and operational support
delivery assurance and finance functions
technical coordination, node diversity and incident readiness
Two senior roles are planned in principle, subject to final scoping and budget alignment:
Director of Ecosystem
Director of Cardano Technology
Jack noted the intention to enter 2026 with clearer structures, defined accountabilities and a focused hiring plan.
Financial transparency and management information
To support governance oversight, Nikhil requested:
a finalised organisational chart including internal roles and external support
management accounts showing P and L, burn rate and cost breakdowns
Jack committed to providing this as part of the year end closeout in December.
External support and capability mix
Nick Cook provided an update on the reduction of PC support roles, which have decreased from fifteen to nine, with the potential to move to seven or six by the end of Q1 next year.
Gerard stressed the importance of ensuring Intersect has senior internal capability for incident coordination and release management. He also encouraged making the roles and contributions of new hires more visible to the community, of which Jack Briggs acknowledged and confirmed is now happening.
MCC funding request for Intersect hubs
Discussion of request
Jack presented a request from the MCC for 100,000 ADA to restart Intersect hubs. The amount would need to come from legacy cash as it was not part of the treasury funded budget.
Board members, including Adam, Gerard and Nikhil, were not comfortable approving the request at this time due to:
unclear ROI
limited evidence of previous hub outcomes
lack of KPIs
concern about setting a precedent for off cycle unbudgeted spending
Rand and Gerard emphasised the need for any revised proposal to show measurable contributions to membership and ecosystem outcomes.
Board conclusion
The board agreed that the request must be refined and tied to measurable KPIs, and could be reconsidered through a future budget process. Jack and Nick will prepare a formal board response.
Executive Director hiring process
Adam provided an update that interviews have yielded three or four strong final candidates. He requested an executive session next week to determine next steps.
The board agreed in principle to meet on Monday December 1 at the usual time, pending confirmation from Prof. Steven. Nick will circulate a provisional invitation.
Adjustment of December board meeting
The board agreed to move the December meeting from the 17th to the 12th. No objections were raised.
Action items
Gerard will gather external stakeholder feedback on the budget info action and share a summary in the board channel.
Jack will reinforce the incident report timeline and ensure the retrospective covers process, roles, communication channels and use of official accounts.
Jack will update the budget info action metadata to reflect the Executive Director as a non voting steering committee member.
Jack will inform the Budget Committee that the net change limit rationale and materials require revision following the integration fund discussion.
Jack will update the December board meeting date to December 12.
Nick will issue the provisional invite for the December 1 executive session and confirm Prof. Steven’s availability.
Jack will provide the organizational chart and management accounts requested by the board as part of year end closeout.
Jack will share secondary discussion items in the board Slack channel for asynchronous review.
Jack and Nick will draft a formal board response to the MCC request, outlining the need for a revised proposal with clearer KPIs, ROI and rationale, to be approved by board majority.
Last updated