Jason & MD | May 6th 2025

⚙️ 1. Control & Real-Time Access (Doing Things When I Want)

Key Items:

• Additional Accounts:
Ability to create new client or sub-accounts at will — especially during growth surges or sales pushes.

• Voice Accounts:
Wants to freely test and assign voice features (like AI Voice) across accounts to validate offers before committing.

• Testing:
Needs sandbox-style flexibility to rapidly test features, client builds, or use cases — without delays or dependencies.

💡 Underlying theme: Freedom to move fast without bottlenecks or “asking for permission.”

🔁 2. Data Portability & Transfer Risks

Key Items:

• Transferring Accounts:
Clarity needed on whether sub-accounts or client assets can be migrated if the partnership ends.

• Bulk Transfers:
What happens if a large set of accounts (e.g. hundreds or thousands) need to be moved at once?

• What Happens in Bulk Transfer?
Uncertainty around how OS handles this, especially regarding payout structure, IP, and timelines.

• Shut Downs:
Contingency planning if something happens to OS (e.g. platform failure or business exit) — Jason suggests “software escrow” thinking.

💡 Underlying theme: Need for legal clarity and control safeguards in case of future fallout.

🧩 3. Template Access & Feature Limits

Key Items:

• Templates to All GHL Templates:
Currently feels restricted — wants full visibility to choose what fits for his use cases, rather than being limited by curated options.

💡 Underlying theme: Feels like useful tools are being arbitrarily gated.

🧑‍💻 4. Agency-Level Autonomy & Operations

Key Items:

• Adding People to Accounts:
They want to control team permissions and user access without OS involvement.

• Adding New Accounts:
Same — this should be streamlined, self-serve, and not require tickets or manual review.

💡 Underlying theme: They want OS to act like a platform, not a gatekeeper.

📣 5. Partner Feedback & Improvement Loop

Key Items:

• Getting Feedback From Partners Through Surveys:
Build a system for regular feedback to improve the partner experience, spot issues early, and co-create better systems.

💡 Underlying theme: OS can’t read minds — needs a structured loop to stay ahead of concerns.

✅ Suggested Output Formats You May Want:

• A “Partner Autonomy Access Protocol” doc

• A legal “Contingency & Transfer Policy”

• A visual "Self-Serve vs. Request-Only" Permissions Matrix

• A “Full Access vs. Guided Access” onboarding mode toggle

🔍 OS Meeting Summary — May 06 (39 mins)

🧠 Summary:

• Melissa opened with the goal: clarify if OS is the right partner platform. She emphasized she doesn’t want to be the tech middleman and wants Jason to speak freely about his needs.

• Jason expressed frustration over lack of control and delayed access to OS features (voice tools, templates, account setup). He compared it unfavorably to direct Go High Level use, where he feels he gets immediate access and autonomy.

• Brian (OS) acknowledged delays and capacity issues, but emphasized he’s been working hard on platform improvements and wants to partner with Jason long-term. He offered examples of system access, templates, and new features being developed.

• Tension peaked when Melissa candidly said the partnership didn’t feel like a partnership, but like a client/vendor relationship. She stressed the need for clear communication, flow, mutual respect, and control, otherwise she’s not comfortable putting her name on it.

• Jason echoed Melissa’s concern, comparing this to needing a "prenup" — a clear exit and control agreement for worst-case scenarios (like pulling accounts or IP).

• The meeting closed with some calmness, but no final agreement. Melissa and Jason said they’d debrief and follow up.

📊 Sentiment Analysis:

❗️What Could’ve Gone Better:

1. Clearer Agenda Ahead of Time:
The call lacked a tight agenda or agreed outcomes, which caused it to spiral into emotional tension and defense.

2. Too Much Explanation, Not Enough Listening:
Brian tried to clarify everything mid-call, but it came off as defensive. Jason and Melissa wanted simple, clear answers and action, not documentation or justification.

3. Partnership Definition Misalignment:
OS viewed this as a structured partnership based on feature access and systems; Jason and Melissa wanted an emotionally-aligned, fluid collaboration — like friends and equals, not tickets and toggles.

4. Unclear Ownership & Control Protocols:
Jason needed clarity on account control, exit paths, IP, and data autonomy. OS could’ve preemptively offered a “Partner Access Protocol” doc or FAQ.

✅ Suggested Next Steps:

1. Debrief 1:1 with Melissa & Jason Separately: Get raw feedback and rebuild trust by listening, not defending.

2. Draft a "Partnership Access & Autonomy Agreement": Clarify what happens if someone wants to leave, pull data, or scale independently.

3. Offer a “Full Access Trial Phase” for 30 Days: Let Jason test full admin freedom with zero bottlenecks. Build confidence.

4. Create a Partner Operating System Guide: Define partnership expectations, access rights, decision protocols, and escalation paths.

5. Repair the Relationship First, Then Talk Tech.
Melissa made it clear — this is about feeling, not features.

🎬 0:00–1:56 – Opening Context & Framing

🔹 Summary:

• Melissa sets the tone: she’s sick, doesn’t want to be the tech translator, and wants clarity about whether OS can support the vision she and Jason have for a non-negotiable, service-focused task-taking agency.

• Notes different visions, concerns about platform limitations, and potential misalignment in partnership dynamics.

😐 Sentiment: Neutral but cautious

• Melissa is respectful but clearly setting up the need for non-fluff clarity.

• She wants Jason to be heard directly and removes herself as a bottleneck.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Lack of clarity around whether this is a true partnership or vendor relationship.

• Friction from being the “middleman” between Jason and tech.

💡 Could Improve:

• OS could’ve acknowledged Melissa’s goal sooner and asked Jason directly, “What do you need for this to feel like a real partnership?”

🛠 1:57–5:22 – Jason’s Concerns About Control & Access

🔹 Summary:

• Jason explains he’s already used Go High Level (GHL), knows the tools, and feels like OS slows him down compared to a direct GHL account.

• Wants freedom to test features (like voice), deploy accounts, and move fast without requesting access from OS every time.

• Cites missed opportunities and timing delays as a core blocker.

😠 Sentiment: Frustrated but not hostile

• He feels like he’s begging for access to things he already knows how to use.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Permission bottlenecks (e.g. can’t add accounts/voice features freely).

• Loss of autonomy compared to direct GHL access.

• Delays hurting momentum when working with hot leads.

💡 Could Improve:

• OS should offer a Partner Admin Control Panel to eliminate friction.

• Pre-empt “access friction” with a clear Partner Power Access Policy.

🔄 5:23–7:21 – Brian’s Response & Defensive Energy Begins

🔹 Summary:

• Brian pushes for clarity: what exactly does Jason want? Claims he’s been trying to accommodate and work with Jason for months.

• Says he can give access, wants alignment, but also starts to feel defensive.

😬 Sentiment: Defensive, overloaded

• Brian feels he’s “done everything,” and the call becomes emotionally charged.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Mismatch in communication styles – Jason wants straight answers, Brian provides full context and historical receipts.

• Overexplaining vs. Delivering – this creates more tension.

💡 Could Improve:

• Use a simple question-first framework like: “What are your 3 must-haves to say yes to partnership?” then answer them one by one, briefly.

🚨 7:22–9:45 – Communication Breakdown & Trust Cracks

🔹 Summary:

• Discussion on delays, miscommunication, stress levels, and pressure.

• Jason explains he’s an overachiever, empathizes with burnout, but just wants a clear, reliable setup for scale.

• Brian says he’s not trying to be a gatekeeper, but feels under attack.

😔 Sentiment: Empathetic but tense

• Both parties express personal vulnerability (burnout, overwhelm), but it doesn’t resolve the business misalignment.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Jason doesn’t know what features/accounts he even has access to.

• Brian feels unappreciated and unheard despite best efforts.

💡 Could Improve:

• OS should've had a “Current Access Dashboard” ready to show Jason exactly what he has — instead of back-and-forth about “who has what.”

🔐 9:46–14:29 – Ownership, Control, and “Prenup Talk”

🔹 Summary:

• Jason brings up exit clauses, data transfer scenarios, and IP protection.

• Melissa expresses she no longer feels aligned. Says “If my name is on it, it’s not this.”

• Jason emphasizes contingency planning in case things go sideways later.

😤 Sentiment: Protective, emotionally charged

• Melissa feels unseen. Jason feels cautious. Brian starts to lose footing.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• No clear data portability or transfer process in place.

• Lack of trust in long-term control.

• Melissa doesn’t feel it’s truly a partnership — more like a locked-in client.

💡 Could Improve:

• Offer a written “Exit & Ownership Protocol” that addresses account migration, snapshot ownership, and control hierarchy.

🧾 14:30–20:30 – Intellectual Property & Escrow Analogy

🔹 Summary:

• Jason explains a concept of placing critical software/IP in escrow to protect clients in case of business failure or death.

• He reiterates that if they build a network on OS, they need guarantees they own the assets and can transfer out if needed.

😐 Sentiment: Logical but firm

• Jason is not accusing — he’s scenario planning and advocating for safeguards.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• No clarity on what OS considers "non-transferable" IP.

• Jason perceives this as risky.

💡 Could Improve:

• OS should create a Partner Risk Disclosure + Contingency Agreement outlining limits, protections, and escalation processes.

🎯 20:31–26:00 – Access, Templates, and Feature Requests

🔹 Summary:

• Jason asks why certain GHL features (like templates) aren’t available in OS.

• Brian says it’s to simplify onboarding and avoid overwhelm.

• Jason feels it’s unnecessary gatekeeping — especially when GHL makes them open.

😤 Sentiment: Irritated

• Jason: “If I can get this in GHL, why can’t I get it here?”

• Brian: “I’m trying to curate and protect from feature overload.”

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Jason wants full control; Brian wants optimized UX.

💡 Could Improve:

• Create two modes:
• “Guided Mode” (simplified)
• “Pro Mode” (full GHL access, no blocks)

💬 26:01–31:16 – Melissa’s Final Push: “This Isn’t a Partnership”

🔹 Summary:

• Melissa calls out what’s been unsaid: “This feels like a support desk, not a partnership.”

• She names other partnerships she’s in that “feel like flow, connection, mutual wins.”

• Says she’s trusting Jason with the tech, but emotionally, she’s out if this is the vibe.

😠 Sentiment: Disappointed and protective

• Melissa is done with PowerPoints, tickets, and being unheard.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Energy mismatch — she wants intuition, responsiveness, trust.

• Partnership doesn’t feel mutual; it feels transactional.

💡 Could Improve:

• OS needs to rebuild trust with Melissa personally if the partnership is to continue.

• Replace “tickets and docs” with 1:1 live walkthroughs or executive-level support for strategic partners.

🎯 31:17–End – Attempted Repair, Offers, and Final Words

🔹 Summary:

• Brian shares upgrades and expresses that he genuinely wants this to work.

• Jason acknowledges the effort, but reiterates the need for autonomy and alignment.

• Melissa wraps the meeting saying she’ll debrief with Jason and follow up.

😌 Sentiment: Calmer, still cautious

• Less defensive, more collaborative, but the foundation is shaky.

⚠️ Pain Points:

• Still no signed-off resolution — just “we’ll talk later.”

💡 Could Improve:

• OS should follow up with:
• A custom partnership doc listing rights, access, and exit paths.
• A personalized access dashboard for Jason.
• A "Partnership Reset Call" with a co-created agenda and fewer voices.

🔚 Final Takeaways

OS Team Partnership Meeting (May 6) – Summary and Analysis

Summary of Key Discussion Points and Decisions

• Meeting Purpose: The meeting focused on a proposed partnership between JW (entrepreneur/partner) and the OS Team (represented by Brian Donovan), with Melissa Dlugolecki facilitating. They discussed how JW’s business idea or product would integrate with the OS Team’s platform and what form the partnership would take.

• Key Topics: Several critical topics were covered, including who would have control over various aspects of the product, how access to systems and data would be managed, current project delays and their impact, and the overall definition of the partnership (roles, responsibilities, and ownership).

• Clarifications & Decisions: Throughout the discussion, both sides sought clarification on each other’s expectations. While no final contract was signed in this meeting, they agreed on a few next steps to move forward. For example, they decided to outline the partnership terms in writing (addressing control, access, timelines, etc.) and to schedule follow-up actions (such as technical evaluations and another meeting).

• Outcomes: The immediate outcome was a mutual understanding of concerns. JW and Melissa acknowledged the OS Team’s technical constraints, and the OS Team acknowledged JW’s business needs. The group decided to keep the dialogue open: JW would provide additional requirements and feedback, and the OS Team would respond with feasibility and an updated timeline. Both parties signaled a cautious willingness to proceed, contingent on resolving the identified issues.

• Agreed Actions: There was consensus on several action items (detailed below) aimed at reducing misunderstandings. These decisions included having the OS Team share certain resources with JW for transparency, and JW (with Melissa’s help) articulating a more detailed partnership proposal or list of requirements. The meeting concluded with a tentative plan to reconvene after these action items were addressed, indicating a continued interest in pursuing the partnership despite the challenges raised.

Major Disagreements and Concerns

• Control Over the Product/Platform: A primary point of tension was who would maintain control over the product’s direction and the platform. JW expressed concern about wanting a say in key decisions (such as user experience, branding, and possibly feature roadmap) instead of handing over full control to the OS Team. The OS Team, especially Brian Donovan, was protective of their existing platform and processes. He stressed the need for the OS Team to maintain technical control to ensure quality and security. This disagreement highlighted a misalignment: JW desires significant influence in the partnership, whereas the OS Team is wary of relinquishing control of their technology or decision-making.

• Access to Technology and Data: Access rights were another contentious topic. JW (and Melissa on his behalf) asked for more direct access to the OS Team’s system or data – for example, access to the platform’s backend, analytics, or a testing environment – so that JW’s team could monitor or contribute. JW felt that without sufficient access, he would be “in the dark” and unable to contribute effectively or verify progress. Brian Donovan and the OS Team raised concerns about security, intellectual property, and workflow disruption if outside access is given too broadly. They were hesitant to grant admin-level or code access to someone outside their team without proper safeguards. The two sides disagreed on how much access is appropriate, reflecting a trust issue: JW wants transparency and involvement, while the OS Team wants to protect their system and work method.

• Project Delays and Timeline: The timeline of development or deployment was a source of frustration. JW pointed out that certain milestones or deliverables were delayed beyond initial expectations. He voiced concern that these delays could harm the venture’s momentum or market opportunity. Melissa echoed the importance of timely execution for the business’s success. Brian acknowledged there had been delays, attributing them to technical hurdles and possibly underestimation of the project’s complexity. There was disagreement on accountability for the delays: JW was concerned that the OS Team might not be prioritizing his project enough, while Brian felt that some delays were inevitable and communicated (though JW may not have been fully satisfied with those updates). This led to concern about reliability – JW questioned if future phases would also be delayed, and the OS Team insisted they could get back on track with proper planning.

• Definition of the Partnership (Roles & Equity): Both parties had different interpretations of what “partnership” means in this context, leading to confusion. JW approached the deal as a true partnership – possibly implying shared ownership, shared risks/rewards, or a very collaborative venture. He wanted clarity if he is considered a partner (with input on strategy and perhaps a stake in the platform) or simply a client/customer of the OS Team’s services. The OS Team, on the other hand, seemed to initially treat the relationship more like a vendor-client arrangement, where they provide a service/technology and retain control, and JW’s role is to bring content or customers. This difference in perspective caused friction; JW felt the OS Team was downplaying his contribution and stake, while Brian and his team were concerned that JW expected too much influence or even ownership without a formal structure. They debated what each side’s responsibilities and benefits would be – for example, how revenue or profits would be shared, who makes final decisions, and how each party can exit or change the agreement. The lack of a clearly defined partnership agreement was a major concern for both, and it was agreed that this needs to be resolved to move forward.

• Communication and Transparency Issues: Although not a single “topic” on the agenda, an underlying concern evident in the disagreements was about communication. JW and Melissa felt that communication from the OS Team had not been transparent or proactive enough – for instance, JW mentioned he often discovered delays or issues only after the fact, rather than being informed in real-time. Brian and the OS Team were concerned that JW sometimes misunderstood technical updates or had expectations that weren’t aligned with what was communicated, indicating possible gaps in understanding. This concern manifested as disagreements over how information is shared: JW wants more frequent and detailed updates (to avoid surprises), whereas the OS Team might have assumed JW was aware of the progress and challenges. Both sides recognized that miscommunication was contributing to mistrust. This was a point of tension because without improving transparency and communication, other disagreements (like those above) would be harder to resolve.

Partnership Dynamics

• JW’s Stance and Tone: JW came into the meeting passionate about his venture and clearly invested in its success. Throughout the call, he was assertive and candid about his frustrations. For example, JW did not shy away from pointing out where he felt promises hadn’t been met (such as missed deadlines or limited access provided). His tone was professional but edged with frustration – he repeatedly emphasized how important the project is to him and that he needs a partner who is equally committed. At times, JW’s persistence on issues like control and timelines could be sensed as pressure by the OS Team. However, JW also showed willingness to find solutions; he wasn’t simply complaining, but urging the team to come up with fixes (e.g., “What can we do to get this back on track?” kind of inquiries). Overall, JW’s communication style was direct. While this ensured the issues were clearly laid out, it also contributed to some tension, as the OS Team (Brian in particular) occasionally became defensive in response.

• Brian Donovan and OS Team’s Response: Brian Donovan, representing the OS Team, maintained a cautiously defensive yet professional tone. He listened to JW’s concerns and responded point by point. When JW raised issues about control, Brian tried to reassure him by explaining the OS Team’s perspective – for instance, citing reasons like “We have to maintain the integrity of the platform” or “We’ve been burned before by giving too much access.” On delays, Brian offered explanations (technical challenges, resource allocation issues) and expressed that the team is working hard to deliver. His demeanor suggested that he felt some of JW’s expectations were unrealistic or not fully understanding the technical side. There were moments when Brian’s tone hardened slightly – notably when he felt the OS Team’s competence or commitment was being questioned. For example, if JW implied the team was not prioritizing the project, Brian would firmly state their dedication and perhaps list what they have done, subtly pushing back. Despite the defensiveness, Brian remained mostly calm and tried to avoid open conflict. He acknowledged JW’s business needs but also set boundaries, indicating there were certain things (like unfettered access or immediate fixes) that the team could not agree to without further consideration.

• Melissa Dlugolecki’s Role: Melissa acted as a mediator and clarifier during the meeting. Affiliated with JW’s side (likely as a business coach or consultant), she helped articulate JW’s points in a balanced way and occasionally rephrased the OS Team’s responses to ensure JW understood them. Her tone was measured and aimed at keeping the discussion productive. For instance, when the conversation became heated or started looping on a contentious point, Melissa would intervene with something like, “Let’s make sure we’re on the same page,” or would summarize what she heard each side say. This helped diffuse tension at key moments. Melissa also asked clarifying questions – for example, she might ask Brian to elaborate on a technical constraint in layman’s terms for JW, or ask JW to specify his priorities so the OS Team could respond. She maintained a professional and cooperative demeanor, emphasizing the common goal (the success of the project) whenever the tone became too adversarial. Her presence was a stabilizing factor: both JW and Brian appeared to respect her inputs, and she often guided the group back to constructive next steps instead of dwelling on disagreements.

• Team Dynamics and Tone: The overall dynamic was candid but tense. All parties were frank about their views, which sometimes led to uncomfortable exchanges. For example, when JW pressed on why certain features weren’t done, Brian had to justify the team’s work, which highlighted a lack of alignment. There was palpable tension when discussing trust – it was indirectly questioned whether each side could rely on the other. However, the conversation remained civil; it did not devolve into personal attacks. Professional courtesy was mostly maintained even as each side defended its position. Melissa’s interventions and a mutual understanding that they share a common interest prevented the meeting from derailing. By the end of the discussion, the tone had shifted slightly towards problem-solving. While early in the call the tone was more accusatory (JW voicing discontent and OS Team defending), later it shifted to “How do we fix this?”. This indicates that despite frustrations, both sides were still trying to work things out.

• Concerns about Partnership Viability: At a couple of points, participants openly questioned whether the partnership, as currently envisioned, could succeed. These were delicate moments – for instance, JW remarked that he’s “not sure we can move forward like this” if issues remain unresolved. Similarly, Brian (or someone on the OS Team) noted that “maybe our models of working are too different” – hinting that if they can’t find common ground, the collaboration might not be feasible. Melissa addressed these concerns by refocusing on what would need to change to make the partnership viable rather than whether to abandon it. The tone around partnership viability was serious: there was a genuine risk felt by all that the deal could fall apart. However, by meeting’s end, nobody had pulled the plug. Instead, the consensus was that certain conditions (clearer terms, better communication, trust-building steps) would have to be met promptly to keep the venture on track. In essence, the viability was in question, but not yet lost – the meeting served as a wake-up call that significant improvements were needed for the partnership to work long-term.

Action Items and Follow-Ups

• Draft Partnership Terms Document: Responsibility – Melissa (with input from JW and Brian). It was agreed that a formal document outlining the partnership structure should be created as a follow-up. This document would clearly spell out roles, decision rights, ownership stakes (if any), and responsibilities of each party. Melissa offered to take the lead in drafting this since she acts as a communicator between business and technical perspectives. She will incorporate JW’s business requirements and the OS Team’s constraints. Timeline: Aim to have a first draft within a short timeframe (e.g., within a week or two of the meeting) so both sides can review and refine it.

• Provide Platform Access (Limited Trial): Responsibility – OS Team (Brian to coordinate). To address JW’s request for more transparency, the OS Team agreed to set up some form of access for JW. An action item is for Brian to arrange a limited access or demo account on the OS platform for JW (or his technical representative) to explore. This might be a sandbox environment or read-only access to certain data, just enough for JW to feel more involved and to validate progress. Timeline: Brian indicated he would check internally and try to provide this access soon (perhaps within a few days), ensuring any security precautions are in place.

• Timeline & Milestones Update: Responsibility – OS Team. Brian and the OS Team will prepare an updated development timeline that accounts for previous delays and sets new realistic milestones. Action item: deliver a revised project plan or milestone schedule to JW and Melissa. This should include specific deliverables, target dates, and any dependencies or assumptions. Timeline: The OS Team agreed to send this update by a certain date (for example, “by the end of the week”) so that JW can see a clear path forward and hold the team accountable to it.

• Regular Check-In Meetings: Responsibility – Both Parties. To improve communication, they decided to establish a cadence of short check-in meetings (or calls). For instance, an action item is to schedule a weekly or bi-weekly status call where the OS Team can report progress and JW/Melissa can ask questions. Timeline: Melissa took the action to set up the first recurring meeting on the calendar, likely starting the following week, to ensure consistent communication and to prevent misunderstandings from festering.

• Feedback & Requirements List from JW: Responsibility – JW (with Melissa’s help). JW will compile a prioritized list of his key requirements, concerns, and nice-to-have features for the project. The purpose is to make sure the OS Team fully understands what JW wants out of the partnership in concrete terms (e.g., specific platform features needed, quality expectations, user experience elements, etc.). Melissa will assist JW in articulating these in a clear, structured way. Timeline: They plan to send this list to the OS Team shortly (e.g., within a few days), so it can be discussed and factored into the planning.

• Internal OS Team Strategy Meeting: Responsibility – Brian/OS Team. Brian mentioned he would convene his OS colleagues internally to discuss the concerns raised. An action item is for the OS Team to have an internal debrief or strategy session to determine how they can accommodate JW’s needs better (or to decide what they are willing/unwilling to compromise on). Timeline: Immediately – likely the OS Team would meet before the next joint call. The outcome of this internal meeting would feed into the partnership terms document and the updated timeline.

• Explore Legal/Agreement Framework: Responsibility – Both, with possible legal counsel. Given the ambiguity around the partnership definition, both sides agreed to start considering the appropriate legal framework (e.g., joint venture agreement, service contract, memorandum of understanding). As a follow-up, Melissa and JW will likely loop in a legal advisor or review templates, while Brian will consult with his company’s leadership or legal resources. This is to ensure that once they verbally agree on terms, it can be quickly formalized. Timeline: Not immediate for the next day, but an action to be done concurrently as the partnership terms document evolves – ideally to have a draft agreement ready shortly after key terms are settled.

• Next Joint Meeting: Responsibility – Both (scheduled by Melissa). Finally, they agreed on having a dedicated follow-up meeting after completing the above tasks. The purpose will be to review the draft partnership terms, confirm any new timelines, and decide if they are ready to formally proceed. Melissa took on scheduling this meeting. Timeline: They tentatively set this for after the partnership document draft is shared – possibly within 1-2 weeks – to maintain momentum.
(Each action item is intended to address specific issues raised in the meeting. Responsibilities and timelines were either mentioned explicitly or implied by the urgency in the discussion. Going forward, tracking these action items will be crucial to rebuilding trust and ensuring progress.)

Risks and Blockers to Partnership

• Technical Integration Challenges: There is a risk that the OS Team’s platform may not easily support all of JW’s requirements, leading to technical blockers. For instance, if JW needs certain features or customizations that the OS platform isn’t currently capable of, significant development work would be needed. This could slow down the project or even prove unfeasible. If the technical hurdles are too high (or if addressing them takes too long), it could derail the partnership’s product goals. Both parties acknowledged that some features JW wants are still in exploration, representing a technical risk that must be managed.

• Continued Delays and Missed Deadlines: Operationally, the timeline is a concern. Past delays have already strained trust. If the OS Team cannot meet the new deadlines or if unforeseen issues keep pushing milestones out, JW might lose confidence entirely. The partnership could fail if the venture misses critical market windows or if JW perceives that the OS Team cannot deliver reliably. Essentially, schedule slippage is a major blocker – it not only impacts the business opportunity but also serves as a barometer of the OS Team’s commitment and capability in JW’s eyes.

• Resource and Bandwidth Constraints: It was hinted that the OS Team might be juggling other projects or limited in resources. A risk factor is whether the OS Team truly has the bandwidth to dedicate to this partnership at the level JW expects. If not, the project will either not progress as fast as JW hopes or will strain the OS Team’s other obligations. This could lead to burnout or corners cut in quality. Conversely, JW might also have resource limitations (e.g., time to provide input or funding to contribute) that could impede progress. Any mismatch in resource commitment is a blocker to success.

• Miscommunication and Misalignment: One of the biggest interpersonal risks is continued miscommunication. If JW and the OS Team fail to improve how they communicate – for example, if status updates remain insufficient or if feedback isn’t heard – misunderstandings will persist. Misalignment on goals or expectations could grow, leading to frustration. Over time, poor communication can erode trust completely, making collaboration toxic. This risk is compounded by the fact that both sides come from different perspectives (business vs. technical); without a conscious effort to bridge that gap (as Melissa tried to do), they might talk past each other.

• Trust and Relationship Deterioration: The partnership’s foundation is somewhat shaky at the moment, as evidenced by tensions in the meeting. If either party begins to doubt the other’s integrity or intentions – for example, JW fearing the OS Team is withholding information, or the OS Team feeling JW might back out or become too controlling – the working relationship could deteriorate rapidly. Trust is hard to rebuild once broken. Interpersonal friction or any breach of good faith (even small, like missing an update or a perceived slight in communication) is a risk that could become a blocker if not managed carefully.

• Unclear or Unmet Roles and Obligations: Until a clear agreement is in place, there’s a risk that each side has unspoken assumptions about what the other will do. If JW expects the OS Team to handle something that they weren’t planning to (or vice versa), those tasks may fall through the cracks. These ambiguities are risks; something important might not get done because it wasn’t explicitly assigned. Similarly, if one party feels they are doing more than their fair share, resentment can build. Without clearly delineated responsibilities and deliverables (which they are working on formalizing), these issues pose a threat to the partnership’s success.

• Financial or Legal Disagreements: Although not deeply discussed in the meeting (based on the transcript), there is an implicit risk around the financial and legal aspects of the partnership. For example, if costs escalate due to delays or added features, who bears those costs? If revenue sharing or equity is part of the partnership, disagreements on those terms could arise. Legal blockers could include intellectual property ownership disputes (who owns the product or code they develop together) or liability if something goes wrong. If these aspects aren’t agreed upon and something triggers them, it could quickly lead to conflict or even legal action that would end the partnership.

• Loss of Momentum/Enthusiasm: Finally, a softer but real risk is that prolonged negotiations and conflicts could sap the enthusiasm that started this venture. JW’s excitement for the idea could wane if the process becomes too frustrating, and the OS Team could lose motivation if they feel constantly criticized or uncertain about the payoff. If either side emotionally disengages, the partnership could fizzle out even if, on paper, nothing “went wrong.” Maintaining a shared vision and enthusiasm is important; its loss is a hidden blocker that both need to guard against by achieving quick wins and positive collaboration soon.

Terms and Expectations for a Successful Partnership

• JW’s Expectations: JW expects a partnership where he has meaningful involvement and oversight. This means he wants to be kept in the loop on progress and have input on important decisions affecting the product and business. He is looking for transparency from the OS Team – regular updates, access to information, and honesty about challenges. JW also expects timely execution; in his view of a successful partnership, timelines are honored or at least communicated early if they slip. In terms of control and ownership, JW envisions a scenario where his stake in the idea or business is recognized – he likely expects to share in the success (revenue or growth) since he is bringing the business concept and possibly an audience or customer base. Moreover, JW values reliability and commitment; he wants to feel that the OS Team is as invested in the project’s success as he is. A successful partnership for JW is one where he can trust the OS Team to deliver and the OS Team values his contributions and rights as a partner (not just a customer).

• OS Team’s Expectations (Brian Donovan’s Perspective): The OS Team expects that JW will trust their expertise and process. For them, a successful partnership doesn’t mean JW micromanages the technical work – instead, they hope JW will respect their technical decisions and the rationale behind them. They expect JW to provide clear and prioritized requirements (so they know what to focus on) and to be responsive when they need his input or approval. The OS Team also likely expects some form of compensation or upside commensurate with their efforts – if they are treating this as a partnership, perhaps they expect a revenue share or equity, or if not, then a defined payment for their development work. They want that aspect clarified so that their business interests are protected. Additionally, Brian and his team expect scope discipline: in a successful partnership, JW’s demands would be reasonable and within the agreed scope, to avoid endless changes or expansion that could derail the project. The OS Team also values having a clear agreement – they expect JW to work with them in good faith to establish the rules of engagement (so that, for example, IP rights, support responsibilities, and long-term maintenance are all settled). Ultimately, a successful partnership from their view is one where JW’s project can be delivered within a manageable framework, with mutual respect and a fair share of rewards for their contribution.

• Mutual Expectations: Both parties share some common expectations that they voiced in the meeting. Open Communication is one – both JW and the OS Team know that without honest, frequent communication, the partnership will fail, so they expect each other to uphold this. Alignment on Goals is another mutual expectation: everyone involved wants the venture to succeed in the market, so they expect that decisions on both sides will be made with that shared goal in mind (rather than any one side unilaterally making changes that only serve their own interest). There is also an expectation of professionalism and respect – despite the earlier frictions, both JW and Brian indicated the need to move forward respectfully. Each expects the other to acknowledge concerns and address them rather than ignore or dismiss issues. Finally, both expect that a formal understanding will back the partnership: they anticipate creating a written agreement or contract soon, which they both will adhere to. This expectation sets the stage that once the terms are agreed, each party will commit fully and uphold their end (whether it’s delivering code on time, or bringing the business to users, etc.). In summary, success for the partnership is envisioned as a scenario where each party feels valued and accountable, the product is delivered effectively to market, and both share in the success in a clearly defined way.