NCA Board Meeting Minutes

1. Agenda Review

The agenda was reviewed and accepted. Items were ordered to address quick-to-resolve matters first. Pablo V proposed moving the "New Site" discussion to follow the "External Relations" item. This was accepted.

2. Check-ins

Participants shared their current perspectives ahead of the substantive agenda:

• Chris T O — Feeling great, reserved thoughts for the vote discussion.
• Pablo V — Felt a weight of uncertainty had been lifted; lighter and excited.
• Ward D — Needed to catch up, having missed the previous week and the vote.
• Daniel T — Expressed frustration and tiredness with the political drama surrounding the go/no-go decision; hoping to move past it and focus on event planning.
• Pepe C — Hopeful the drama would soon be over.
• Daniela M S — Tired from the volume of reading and writing, but excited by the voting participation, which was unexpectedly positive despite negative discussions on Discord.
• Michelle T — Shared personal good news; in good spirits.
• Ben D — Feeling good after a relaxing weekend.

Previous meeting agenda was confirmed as accepted.

3. Bylaws Amendments

Peter D confirmed he would locate the document with required cross-references and cleanups for the proposed bylaws amendments, aiming to have it ready by Wednesday.

The group discussed whether a General Assembly would be required for amendments. Pepe C confirmed that since all eight voting members were present, they could streamline the process by having all eight sign the document directly.

Decision: Pepe C to prepare the documents for signing after receiving Peter D's cleanup details. Target: completion this week.

4. Legal Advice Proposal

Pablo V presented a legal advice proposal covering Code of Conduct, GDPR, terms and conditions, and other policies.

• Cost: 5,700 EUR (plus VAT)
• Initial term: 3 months of support
• Proposed negotiation: Extend the support period to 6–9 months at the same price

Key discussion points:

• Peter D found ~500 EUR/month reasonable and preferred extending to a full year to avoid ambiguity about annual legal costs.
• Ben D confirmed there was no downside to accepting the agreement and then negotiating for a longer duration.
• Pepe C advised stretching the term to at least six months due to expected slow execution, and suggested adding milestones so payment is based on delivery rather than a fixed timeline, transferring the risk of delays to the lawyers.
• Daniel T offered to cover the first payment installment, to ease the immediate financial burden while the association's bank account is being set up.

Decision: The board authorised accepting the price and three-payment structure, and authorised Pablo V and Pepe C to negotiate a follow-up clause extending support to 6–9 months with milestone-based payments. Update expected by Thursday.

5. External Relations Update

Pepe C provided a brief update. The primary current goal is to establish direct lawyer-to-lawyer communication channels. Chris T O offered to attend any in-person meetings if helpful.

6. Go/No-Go Vote Results — Discussion

The community vote on whether to proceed with an event returned 65% Yes. Daniel T opened the discussion, noting the result was already being interpreted in various ways on community channels. He emphasised the need for the board to agree on a brief statement that day and a more comprehensive one by Thursday's community meeting.

Individual Positions

Daniel T

Personally disappointed the Yes vote was not above 70%. Noted confusion during the simultaneous voting process and urged the board to simplify future votes. Interpreted the 65% Yes as providing a mandate for "some kind of event."

Chris T O

Noted the turnout and percentage were about 10 percentage points lower than the 75% they had hoped for, which raises questions about governance and the nature of the event. Worried about perceived low enthusiasm for "Yes" and suggested investigating what concerns caused people to vote "No" — potentially to address those concerns and bring them on board. Suggested potentially restructuring the event into a more "working event."

Pepe C (non-board)

Mixed feelings. Viewed the result as positive and workable despite the spread. Stressed the need to show clarity to boost excitement. Emphasised the importance of distinguishing between those who will never change their minds and those who are only cautious — the cautious group can potentially be won over.

Daniela M S (non-board)

Offered a more optimistic perspective: the 67.2% voter participation was quite high and successful, especially compared to typical engagement levels for similar community votes. Felt the opposition noise was concentrated in Discord and did not represent the broader community. Reported that based on conversations with department leads, the volunteer situation and crisis flags were not as bad as perceived, with people actively working on solutions. Insisted on the need for a dedicated communications team to disseminate information and counter negative narratives, citing the importance of this role in other burns.

Ben D

Viewed the 65% as ambiguously in the middle — a successful Yes vote but not overwhelming certainty. Found the 80% willingness to participate (from both Yes and No voters) encouraging, suggesting many No voters would engage if the board decided to proceed. Leaned toward a positive "let's do it" decision based on the numbers and the principle that a central body should mobilise people toward action. Stressed that going forward only makes sense if the event actively addresses burnout and focuses on organisational design and sustainability planning. Identified two critical risks: (1) the risk of damaging the event or community for future editions, and (2) the financial viability of the event.

Michelle T

Taken aback by the high 35% No turnout, finding it surprisingly high. Agreed with the idea of holding a gathering for No voters to express their reasons. Echoed the sentiment that the organisation has historically done communications poorly and needs massive improvement. Expressed interest in exploring a different event format, viewing the current situation as an opportunity to rethink and differentiate the event. Stated she was unconvinced that taking a year off would result in losing people, suggesting it could provide time to "prune things back."

Ward D

Noted that of the 42 No voters, only 15 said they would not attend the event if it went ahead, but emphasised that there need to be enough volunteers for crucial roles. Raised the concern (from Tyche) that people who promise to help often do not follow through, especially if they are not attending the event. Pointed out that the event has high fixed startup costs, meaning lower attendance might necessitate higher ticket prices. Felt they were losing potential volunteers every week as people made other plans, and urged urgency. Suggested prioritising low-income tickets for people willing to do early build work.

Victor P

Agreed with Ben D and Daniela M S. Recommended deciding "Go." Acknowledged the vote was imperfect but highlighted the enthusiastic response and the current unprecedented momentum of self-organisation on Discord.

Pablo V

Concluded that governance had worked effectively — the two-to-one Yes-versus-No outcome provides a clear community preference for proceeding with an event. Identified the main challenge as preventing critical people from burning out. Proposed communicating the event as deliberately scaled-down, intentionally reducing scope to make it easier to run and build new experience and trust. Stressed the importance of attracting new energy, as the current core group is getting older.

Board Decision on Go/No-Go

The board agreed to proceed with an event for July 7–12, 2026. The following statement was released:

"The Board has voted to ratify the Go/No-Go recommendation: we are GO for an event in Monegros on 7-12 July 2026, after considering the community vote and feedback. More details on Thursday 8pm CET 7pm UK https://meet.google.com/ers-prkd-rzt"

Ben D will elaborate a fuller, more detailed statement for release on Thursday at the community meeting.

Note on scope: While several members expressed views about the event's scale and format (some favouring a scaled-down approach, others exploring different formats), no formal decision was taken on the scale or nature of the event — only that an event will proceed. The question of event scope and format remains part of the ongoing consultation.

Non-Board Member Voting

Daniel T proposed allowing non-board members Pepe C and Daniela M S to participate in the vote given their critical perspectives. Michelle T disagreed, noting Daniela M S's potential conflict of interest (as a paid contractor). The board proceeded with a formal board-only vote with seven members present (quorum met).

7. Extension of Daniela M Siem's Contract

Daniela M S stepped out for this discussion. Daniel T proposed renewing her contract for the next month of work given the decision to proceed with the event.

• Pablo V offered to personally fund the extension as a member loan, to be formally documented as OPEX funding at zero interest.
• Ward D suggested connecting the contract to a ticketing deadline.

Decision: The board voted unanimously to renew Daniela M S's contract, funded by a member loan from Pablo V.

8. Ticketing

Ward D raised concerns about the lack of deadlines for ticket sales. The consensus was that a ticketing launch date could not be announced immediately — the treasurer (Peter), and Daniela M S need to meet first to discuss scenarios, budgets, and risk mitigation.

Decision: Ticketing timelines to be announced next week after treasurer discussions.

9. MetaLeads Meeting

Ward D asked about the next MetaLeads meeting. Ben D confirmed he was organising it. Daniela M S suggested waiting until after Thursday's community call so the meeting could address questions stemming from the "go" decision.

Decision: MetaLeads meeting postponed to the following week to allow for better internal organisation of teams. A poll will determine meeting frequency.

Ben D identified the immediate priority as locking down departments and teams to address critical gaps in volunteers.

10. Administrative

Daniel T reminded everyone to log into the Humans app to approve collaborators. One person in the pipeline was noted as a potential strike lead.

Action Items

1. Peter D — Send bylaws cleanup details to Pepe C (target: Wednesday)
2. Pepe C — Prepare bylaws amendment documents for signing by all eight voting members (target: this week)
3. Pablo V & Pepe C — Negotiate with legal advisors for extended support term (6–9 months) with milestone-based payments; report back by Thursday
4. Daniela M S & Michelle T — Begin conversation about improving the association’s communications strategy
5. Ben D — Elaborate a fuller public statement for release on Thursday
6. Ben D — Inform leads about MetaLeads meeting timing; continue department planning
7. Peter D & Daniela M S — Meet with treasurer to discuss ticketing scenarios, budgets, and risk mitigation
8. All board members — Log into Humans app to approve pending collaborators