Meeting notes from 2025

2025 December 16¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Election Update

  • PMO will announce election results once confirmation is received from Martha

• Executive Director

  • PMO to provide ED job description and salary details

  • Governing Board to hold a vote in 2026 on whether to pursue hiring

2025 December 9¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Executive Participation & Project Structure

  • Executive Council members discussed strategies to increase participation, such as converting foundation members into community members to build executive skills.

  • The EC recommends consolidating the Widgets and Voila subprojects to improve focus.

    • Future reorganization and consolidation efforts will be discussed with the Software Steering Council (SSC).

• Scheduling & Elections

  • A COI meeting is set for next week, and the final Governing Board meeting of the year is on December 12.

  • Meetings are cancelled from December 23 to January 6, with a handoff transition meeting scheduled for January 14.

  • Election results will be officially announced on December 19 (after COI reviews) using a standard blog post template.

  • An SSC meeting is being planned for early next year, ensuring at least one month’s notice for attendees.

2025 December 2¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Election and Governance

  • The EC election closes Sunday. An official LFX vote for the remaining candidates concludes Tuesday, with results announced Dec 19.

  • A transition/mentorship meeting is confirmed for January 13.

  • Clarified that Conflict of Interest forms are required for new members, while existing members only need to update them if their interests change.

• Strategy and Roadmap

  • The EC set a goal to create a project-wide technical roadmap next year, balancing sub-project independence with a unified vision.

  • Rick proposed pursuing an ISO standard for the notebook document format; this will likely start with community maintainers.

  • Discussed the challenge of balancing the nonprofit mission with commercial utility, agreeing that executive leadership needs to provide clear guidance on this scope.

• Operations and Process

  • Acknowledged that current checklists are outdated. Future action items include formalizing the offboarding process (currently tracked in Asana) and updating onboarding docs.

  • Naomi is preparing the 2026 budget presentation for the governing board next Friday.

• Technology and Projects

  • The group agreed on the value of “interoperable building blocks” rather than a single opinionated solution to accommodate diverse user infrastructures.

2025 November 25¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• The team explored merging JupyterLab and Notebooks into “Jupyter Frontends” and retiring inactive projects (e.g., iPi Widgets, Voila).

• Jason is organizing a resource list for hosting AI workshops and will contact the Board regarding resource collaboration.

• Election and Governance

  • The voter list requires updates to differ from the Union of Councils list; the team must warn voters about potential duplicate ballot receipts.

  • Tom will review the voter list and send the election email. Jason proposed centralized open profile accounts to streamline access.

  • Proposals to have EC members attend sub-project meetings are being considered, though major changes are paused until the January turnover.

• The group agreed the Jupyter Media Strategy (JMS) Working Group retains final say on marketing, not the Linux Foundation. They are targeting a budget increase to ~85-90k.

• Established a “happy path” where JMS works directly with the Foundation on logistics, escalating to the EC only when conflicts arise.

2025 November 18¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Plausible Subscription Discount Review

  • Naomi and Jason agreed to check on the Plausible subscription discount next week.

• Election Process and Workshop Updates

  • The election process received five nominations but one was incomplete/suspicious.

  • Naomi requested validation of candidates from EC members.

  • Will use OpalVote Meek FTV for the election.

  • Jason suggested the JCB (Jupyter Community Building) should handle the email about a workshop from Deb.

  • A blog post about the workshops is ready for publication, with Deb finalizing dates.

  • PMO to proceed with validation while giving the community a chance to identify the submitter of the incomplete nomination.

• EC Transparency and Community Engagement

  • Jason noted several people expressed interest in running for EC but ultimately declined this cycle.

  • Naomi and Ana expressed concerns about opening EC meetings to observers due to practical challenges and focus.

    • Agreed to continue with closed meetings but maintain transparency through GitHub documentation.

    • Will continue to offer EC office hours for community engagement.

• EC Transition Planning

  • A transition meeting will be held on January 13, 2026

    • Suggestion: A buddy system for new EC members to acclimate (Ana and Naomi).

  • Zach agreed to share the existing onboarding checklist for new EC members with Naomi.

• Jupyter Community Strategy Planning

  • Discussed working with the Jupyter Media Strategy Group on marketing, engagement (especially pre/post-JupyterCon), and identifying success story contacts.

  • Naomi presented 2026 budget line items, including a proposed $77K for LF Marketing.

  • There is a need for a website redesign

    • Previous redesign stalled due to concerns over control/content.

  • Ana suggested a lightweight process for community proposal reporting involving proposer-defined metrics and monthly check-ins.

  • Chris and Jason discussed empowering subprojects, with Chris emphasizing the need for strategic direction and resourcing for the Software Steering Council (SSC).

2025 November 11¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Working Group Strategy and Meetings

  • Naomi suggested a monthly technical meeting to address gaps in empowering subgroups and providing a check-in platform for working groups.

    • Sharing updates from staff/EC, discussing roadmaps, and reporting out (similar to other projects).

• SSC Governance and Meeting Strategy

  • Low attendance at weekly SSC (Strategic Steering Committee) meetings.

  • Naomi suggested keeping the open format but potentially increasing frequency to monthly.

  • Jason emphasized that strategic movement needs to start and be resourced at the sub-project level.

• Project Strategy and Autonomy

  • Jason highlighted sub-projects (like JupyterHub) are already experimenting with community organization and process improvement.

  • Ana stressed the need for clearer expectations and concrete strategies for sub-projects.

  • Darian raised concerns about the capacity to maintain large projects (like JupyterLab) with a community-driven model, noting the need for significant resources.

  • Zach suggested some projects lack proactive energy, with progress often being reactive rather than constant development.

• Reforming Council’s Governance Role

  • Zach proposed the Executive Council (EC) evolve from an executive body to a consulting group or governing board, representing the community’s voice.

    • Suggested encouraging the foundation to hire an ED due to limited EC capacity.

  • Discussed having a chairperson to improve meeting efficiency.

  • Bandwidth and governance changes are slated for the upcoming board meeting.

• Governance Model Restructuring

  • Zach proposed elevating the SSC concept by merging it with the EC instead of dissolving structures.

  • The next board meeting will prioritize discussing a part-time ED role.

  • Ana suggested EC meetings every other week, using off-weeks to revive the SSC with observers and a rotating facilitator.

• Jupyter Strategic Leadership

  • There is a gap in proactive leadership for major initiatives, despite the EC’s implicit strategic responsibility.

  • Ana suggested setting a high-level vision for Jupyter’s growth without dictating specific actions.

  • Naomi proposed involving the formation team for guidance on project structures.

  • The election process has been extended and now has five candidates.

• Community Election Process

  • The nomination period ends November 16th, followed by EC validation and then voting.

    • Using OPAVote for the election.

  • The distinction between EC and community-elected members to be kept private.

2025 October 28¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Update

  • Current Status: Registration stands at 234. The event has a high Food & Beverage minimum based on 400 attendees.

  • External Marketing Opportunity (AI Camp):

    • There is an opportunity to partner with AI Camp to send an email to their lists (5,000 people in San Diego, 8,000 in LA).

    • The proposal involves offering 100 free passes to JupyterCon at a cost of $1,000 per city (or$2,000 total).

    • A decision is needed today on this opportunity.

    • A central strategic question was raised: What is the priority: People attending or selling passes?

    • The group may also target university students.

  • Attendee Profile: There is an expected high concentration of large tech companies in attendance.

  • Presentations

    • The group is preparing for the JupyterCon 2025 EC update talk.

    • Contribution Metrics:

      • Zach usedAI to analyze contributions over the past 10 years and create an executive summary.

      • The finding indicates a steady decline in unique contributors since 2019.

      • The presentation should highlight that there are many opportunities for new contributors to get involved.

• Community Proposals

  • A discussion is planned for a meeting at 8 am PST tomorrow regarding community proposals.

• EC Election Update

  • The period for nominations is currently open.

2025 October 21¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Zoom Meetings

  • PMO will send a poll for a new day/time for the weekly Security Council meeting

  • PMO will add individuals to the Community Channel meeting

• Plausible Update

  • The Plausible annual subscription transaction is being flagged as fraud by the LF’s credit card provider.

  • PMO is working with Plausible and its payment processor to resolve the issue.

• Jupyter Community Proposals

  • A private repo was created for discussion and voting

    • Proposals were copied over from the public repo

    • A tracking sheet was also created

  • EC members will read the community proposals and be ready to discuss them on Friday.

2025 October 14¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Update

  • Registration saw a 7% increase from last week, including at least 10 paid registrations.

  • An email regarding the Pytorch offer is scheduled to go out this week.

  • Press coverage at JupyterCon will be managed by Naomi, utilizing the Outreach and Engagement and Social Media community groups.

  • Discussion points for the JupyterCon Keynote included:

    • The goal is to create buzz for the community (“Jupyter ra ra talk”).

    • The presentation should leverage information that generates positive impressions for the Jupyter brand for both the in-room and global/YouTube audiences.

    • Specific content ideas included:

      • Asking the Jupyter Foundation for messaging (to be added to the Oct 17 agenda)

      • Announcing funded community proposals and workshops

      • Giving distinguished contributor shout-outs

      • Addressing the EC election

      • Highlighting the White House award

      • Emphasizing Jupyter’s importance (e.g., use by STEM students, its convergence for Data Analysts, and its infrastructure-level importance).

    • The talk should welcome and invite the audience to become new contributors.

• Plausible Subscription

  • The Nbviewer service is causing high traffic, pushing the organization way over the 10M view limit (up to 500-800k views a day).

    • The source of traffic remains unknown.

  • The new cost for the Plausible subscription is $6,390/year (or$5,400 with the 15% discount).

  • The cost will be deducted from the $25k that the Executive Council (EC) received from the Governing Board (GB).

  • Jason motioned to approve the Plausible subscription. Chris seconded, and all were in favor.

• Election Update

  • PMO will send out an email regarding the process change for the EC election.

• Mailing Lists / Google Groups

  • The PMO will also assist in managing mailing lists.

    • Naomi and Tom will be added as admins on existing mailing lists.

  • There is a plan to migrate mailing lists to Jupyter.org.

2025 October 7¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Update

  • Registration numbers are up 10 from the previous week’s update.

  • A follow-up email promotion is being sent to boost registrations.

  • An email promotion for project sub-meetings is being sent, as the venue has approved the use of space.

  • A roll call is required to determine who will attend, requiring a leader from each project.

  • Need to determine who will be joining from the governing board meeting.

• Nomination Process

  • Initial submissions should be kept private. The EC will perform minimal vetting, and the final slate of candidates will then be made public.

  • The nomination period should be extended to include JupyterCon.

  • A validation period of three days is sufficient, based on an expectation of receiving a pool of 5-6 candidates.

• Workshop Funding

  • A proposal for an additional $10,000 to fund a workshop was discussed.

  • Jason motioned, and Zach seconded. Jason, Zach, Ana and Darian were in favor.

    • RESOLVED - that an additional $10,000 be used to fund an additional workshop.

  • It was noted that the Governing Board (GB) should approve the amount, but the EC can use its own funds if necessary.

• Retrospective and Future Funding

  • The extra GB scrutiny on the additional workshop was unwarranted.

  • The EC should brainstorm ways to work with organizers to make workshops more powerful to encourage a bigger impact and attract additional future funding.

  • Mike should participate in a retrospective with the GB on project spending and projected membership.

  • The organization’s 501(c)(6) should be used to fund EC initiatives.

• Plausible

  • A virtual credit card for the subscription was submitted to LF Finance. If the card is not received, a member will use their personal credit card to cover the charge.

• Community Proposals

  • The EC can provide initial vetting before handing the proposals off to the GB.

  • A question was raised regarding how the GB would receive the proposals without the explicit opinion of the EC.

  • Action Item: The Project Management Office (PMO) will assist with compiling proposal submissions and sending them to the GB.

2025 September 30¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Update

  • Registration

    • We need to drive registration

      • We expect an attendance bump the month before the event.

    • The loss of a major social media platform was a significant hit to outreach.

    • Work is underway to spread awareness using a list of previous attendees.

    • There is a large pool of students available for sprints, but cost is a prohibitive factor. A dedicated page to promote sprints was suggested.

  • It has been a struggle to design a program that consistently attracts and retains customers.

  • Having a US-based event is decreasing international attendance due to geopolitical issues.

    • LF Events team to be consulted for recommendations on how other projects cater to a global community.

  • JupyterCon 2026

    • It was suggested to not host a JupyterCon next year.

    • Alternative strategies to hosting a standalone event:

      • Sponsoring

      • Having a presence at other events

      • Co-locating with another event to reduce risk and cost

      • Leveraging time afforded at Open Source Summit as a member of the Linux Foundation (LF) was also mentioned.

    • The EC should decide on the size and scale of JupyterCon 2026 before this year’s event.

• Governance and Executive Council Role

  • The commitments of the EC are placing a heavy strain on the time and resources of its members.

  • EC is trying to function as an Executive Director is unsustainable - filling an Executive Director role is essential.

  • A question was raised about the success of the Jupyter Foundation being due to the purposefully different governance structure.

  • If the number of EC votes on the GB was reduced, this could reduce the community’s voice to the GB, as the EC acts as a key touch-point.

  • Any changes to governance must be made gradually.

2025 September 23¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Updates

  • Beyond Brad and Deb, Naomi can assist with budget-related items. Other sources of information and decisions include the Executive Council and potentially Kristie. In previous years, there was a chairperson and a community building committee.

  • All official communication will be via email.

  • Mike’s team is running a local campaign targeting businesses within a two-hour radius of San Diego.

  • An internal campaign will add JupyterCon advertisements on various Jupyter spaces (tracking issue: jupyter-governance/ec-team-compass/issues/145).

  • Meeting rooms can be created at no extra cost, but other uses might incur A/V expenses.

  • For next year’s event, the inclusion of a community committee to assist with branding and non-content items, and a liaison from the Executive Council were suggested.

• Plausible

  • Approximately 3 million views per month across five sites (docs.jupyter.org, jupyter.org, mybinder.org, mybinder.readthedocs.io, and nbviewer.org).

  • Plausible’s recommended plan is roughly $2,590 per year, which would be about$2,200 for the first year with a 15% discount.

  • The recommendation is to pay for Plausible. The purpose of the spend is to record web traffic to guide future decisions and avoid being “blind.”

  • Jason motioned, and Darian seconded. All are in favor of making a proposal to the Governing Board for funding.

  • PMO will reach out to Plausible regarding upgrading the free trial and payment.

• Shared Community Manager

  • What does the EC think about sharing a community manager between JB and Hub, with the goal of learning how to serve each community and also build cross-community relationships?

2025 September 16¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• EC Election

  • Discussion ensued regarding the upcoming EC election process.

  • PMO to create and present a document outlining the election procedure changes

2025 September 9¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• EC Election

  • PMO will put together a document for the EC election process

• 1Password

  • LF PMO now has admin access in 1Password

• AI transcription of this meeting

  • PMO to turn on transcription and AI summary for Executive Council meetings.

• Follow-up on engaging with SSC

  • Still working on the letter

  • Ana is willing to help if 1/1 feedback or bouncing ideas off someone is helpful.

• AI Contribution Statement:

  • Zach is figuring out how to share these points with the public.

• Proposals in Progress

  • Contributor in residence

  • Community Manager

  • Media strategy proposal

  • Quantstack proposal on accessibility

  • The biggest blocker is the lack of consulting firms to build features

2025 September 2¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Discussion: SSC Meeting

  • Goals for the Meeting: The primary aim is to increase transparency and project growth. The EC wants to frame the meeting as the first step in a cultural shift to improve collaboration between the SSC and EC and align the community around shared goals, such as attracting new corporate contributors.

  • Encouraging Attendance: A key challenge is getting the SSC to show up. The most effective method is believed to be direct outreach. Discussion ensued about meeting frequency, with some suggesting a less frequent cadence might encourage attendance, while others proposed a frequent start to build rapport.

  • Discussion Points: To encourage open dialogue, a portion of the meeting may not be recorded. The conversation also touched on how to sustain the cultural shift beyond just one meeting and how to avoid “juggling too many balls” by aligning this effort with existing projects like the CfPs.

• Discussion: JEP Pre-Proposal on AI -Assisted contributions to Jupyter

  • Problem and Goals: The Executive Council questioned whether the proposal effectively solved a pressing problem, noting that it aimed to get ahead of the issue of low-quality, AI-generated content. The goals are to establish a clear stance on AI, mitigate project risk, and empower maintainers and new contributors by providing a framework for using AI tools.

  • Concerns: The group expressed significant concerns about the proposal’s length and the feasibility of enforcing its guidelines. They also acknowledged the need to address the strong ethical and moral opposition to AI, which stems from issues like intellectual property and environmental impact.

  • Community Impact: The Executive Council recognized that this conversation could consume a lot of energy and lead to “bikeshedding” and emotional debate. However, it was also suggested that the topic could be used to encourage participation in an upcoming strategic planning meeting.

2025 August 26¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• JupyterCon Update

  • Registration

    • We need to drive registration

      • We expect an attendance bump the month before the event.

    • The loss of a major social media platform was a significant hit to outreach.

    • Work is underway to spread awareness using a list of previous attendees.

    • There is a large pool of students available for sprints, but cost is a prohibitive factor. A dedicated page to promote sprints was suggested.

  • It has been a struggle to design a program that consistently attracts and retains customers.

  • Having a US-based event is decreasing international attendance due to geopolitical issues.

    • LF Events team to be consulted for recommendations on how other projects cater to a global community.

  • JupyterCon 2026

    • It was suggested to not host a JupyterCon next year.

    • Alternative strategies to hosting a standalone event:

      • Sponsoring

      • Having a presence at other events

      • Co-locating with another event to reduce risk and cost

      • Leveraging time afforded at Open Source Summit as a member of the Linux Foundation (LF) was also mentioned.

    • The EC should decide on the size and scale of JupyterCon 2026 before this year’s event.

• Governance and Executive Council Role

  • The commitments of the EC are placing a heavy strain on the time and resources of its members.

  • EC is trying to function as an Executive Director is unsustainable - filling an Executive Director role is essential.

  • A question was raised about the success of the Jupyter Foundation being due to the purposefully different governance structure.

  • If the number of EC votes on the GB was reduced, this could reduce the community’s voice to the GB, as the EC acts as a key touch-point.

  • Any changes to governance must be made gradually.

2025 August 26¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Community Proposals

  • Jason, Chris, Rick and Zach reviewed the pending deliverables for the Community Proposal Process

• 1Password

  • EC to share 1Password access to LF so PMO has access to social media and give out access without asking the EC.

• Prompt: What can the EC spend $100k in discretionary funds in the next year to move Jupyter forward in its most important problems? The Executive Council held a brainstorming session on problems, potential solutions and next steps.

  • Personnel: Hire a Developer Experience Engineer, a Community Manager, and a Technical Writer to improve documentation.

  • Strategy & Leadership: Establish and communicate a project-wide roadmap to provide a clear vision for the next 5-10 years. This includes engaging existing leaders in the SSC, WGs, and SCs to gather feedback and retain contributors.

  • Documentation & Onboarding: Improve documentation standards, redesign jupyter.org, and create a new contributor onboarding program to better support the community.

2025 August 12¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

JupyterCon Plans for upcoming conferences, including EC keynote slot.

Leverage PMO for EC Operations Discussions on leveraging PMO includes managing EC elections, publishing public meeting minutes, cleaning up the GitHub tracker, website management, and processes for onboarding and offboarding EC members.

Funding and Proposals Discussions around allocating budget, creating guidelines for community funding proposals, and specific proposals for workshops and other initiatives.

Community engagement Leverage PMO to potentially help with the community call. EC efforts to improve communication with the community through channels like Discourse and Zulip, organizing community calls, and establishing clearer responsibilities for community-facing elements.

May 27th 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Rick Wagner

• All others were unavailable today

Notes¶

• Brief meeting, no quorum

• Discussed JupyterCon and future/forward looking planning for event

May 20th 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Afshin Darian

• Rick Wagner

• Jason Grout

• Zach Sailer

Notes¶

• Triage of EC GH Project Board: made progress on reviewing priorities and backlog

• Discussion of public communication from the EC issue. Brainstormed principles and practices for more frequent communication. Requires continued work. Once we land on principles we’ll publicly announce.

• Review and test of GH Sponsor link https://github.com/sponsors/jupyter

• Discussion and review of mission/vision/values for Project Jupyter

• Discussion of engaging with a consultant

May 13th 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Afshin Darian

• Jason Grout

• Rick Wagner

• Zach Sailer

• Chris Holdgraf (joined to discuss OM proposal)

Notes¶

• Spent time triaging Executive Council Team Compass and Jupyter Governance repo (shared repo with Software Steering Council). The EC will spend time weekly on triaging moving forward.

• Discussion of trademark enforcement. Discussion of resolving open issues and working more closely with LF lawyer.

• Discussion of security concern in the following issue: jupyter/nbformat#411 - next step will be review by the security subproject

• Discussion of interactions with the Foundation Governing board and how to better work with that group.

• Discussion of the Technical Subcommittee meeting of the Jupyter Foundation and working toward a software quality program for subprojects to opt individual published packages and repos backstopped by Foundation funded work for maintenance and security issues.

May 6th 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Rick Wagner

• Afshin Darian

• Zach Sailer (left 45 minutes early)

• Jason Grout (left for 20 minutes and then came back)

Notes¶

• JupyterLab Desktop. Discussion surrounding EC response. Darian and Ben from the Governing Board used this example to start designing a software quality program to solve cases like this. jupyterlab/jupyterlab-desktop#890

• JupyterCon: Discussion surrounding kick off for the Program Committee. EC needs to support the Program Chair with the goal of launching this group in the next two weeks.

• Jupyter Community Workshops: Discussion surrounding logistics related to this event series and next steps for bringing these to fruition. This event series is led by the Jupyter Community Building working group.

• Software quality at Jupyter; reviewed a proposed program to support ongoing quality improvements funded by the Jupyter Foundation.

• Email and domain management; making sure that ipython.org and its resources are managed by EC.

Apr 29, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Jason Grout

• Chris Holdgraf

• Zach Sailer joined at 9:37am

Notes¶

• Discussion: Documentation support for Jupyter: Chris shared some notes and discussion from conversations he has been having with projects in the LF ecosystem in order to improve documentation. Docs has been noted as a key area of improvement for both subproject needs and for foundation members. Chris had a meeting with CNCF to learn what kind of system they use to support their subprojects in documenting and shared their system. We discussed the possibility of using foundation funds for this. Concluded that Chris should reach out to the Documentation Working Group to gauge interest in making systemic improvements in documentation for the Jupyter community. Chris will follow up.

• Discussion: Tidelift accounts for Jupyter / Linux Foundation: we discussed whether there is anything we can do to move forward the Tidelift transition to LF. Right now, no. It is bogged down in LF/Tidelift reaching an agreement, and this has been slow both because Tidelift is being acquired, also because LF projects are not the kind of projects that Tidelift usually targets (they target smaller projects generally speaking). It may be some time before this completes and we aren’t sure that we have the ability to speed it up.

• Decision: Centralizing PyPI accounts: We voted on this issue and agreed to merge it to move the conversation forward.

• Discussion: Product and strategic vision for Jupyter. A number of stakeholders have said that they’d value having clearer direction and vision for the project as a whole. Both from the Jupyter community, and from the Foundation members. This could be a way to get people excited about shared directions, align efforts, and raise funds. JEC is the the right group to lead this effort, but has limited capacity. We will open an issue to track this moving forward and kick off a discussion. Might use Foundation resources to help with this.

Apr 22, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Jason Grout

• Chris Holdgraf

• Afshin Darian

• Rick Wagner

Notes¶

• Triaged and reviewed our EC task board (updated existing GH project and deprecated old google sheet which had fallen out of use).

• Discussed jupyter/governance#272, and the more general issue of administrative control of Project Jupyter spaces and artifacts. We discussed having a relevant principle in the governance docs, and asking the security subproject to drive policies in this area.

• Discussed the need for more capacity in executive leadership and community and stakeholder relations. We are working on shaping a proposal around this.

• Approved prize money for Jupyter Distinguished Contributors cohort that was just selected.

• Discussed a process for the EC prioritizing areas of effort

Apr 15, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• A. T. Darian

• Rick Wagner

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Jason Grout

• Zach Sailer

Notes¶

• Discussed the feedback issue from the Jupyter community for funding needs and how we can most effectively engage there. Will follow up in that issue with an update about where we’ve been prioritizing our time.

• Discussed the importance for having more regular communication out of the JEC meetings and progress throughout the week. We noted a capacity challenge due to being a volunteer group with a lot to do. Our goals will be to prioritize providing updates in issues, Discourse posts, etc that are low-effort, rather than “formal communication”.

• Refined proposal for the Jupyter Foundation goals and strategy to get agreement from the Foundation and posted on the Jupyter Foundation Team Compass (compass.jupyterfoundation.org)Discussed this Jupyter Desktop issue and noted that directing community attention to these kinds of issues, and facilitating conversations around it, is the kind of thing the Foundation could support. General feeling that the issue is complex and the right information / conversations haven’t happened to make a clear decision in a “formal” sense from the JEC.

Apr 8th, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Rick Wagner

• Jason Grout

• Afshin Darian

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Chris Holdgraf

Notes¶

• Discussed supporting an NSF proposal from Rick W. to work on security issues across the Jupyter ecosystem.

  • This is a non-binding letter, it is just a statement of support.

  • Ana and Chris agreed to sign the letter on behalf of the JEC.

• Discussion about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Standing Committee and Community Building working group

• Project management and general board processes - review of existing system and discussion of a plan to improve existing system in the coming month.

• Discussion about the importance of limiting our GitHub organizations

  • Recognized that this is a security and an accessibility challenge.

  • Recognized that historically Jupyter has given freedom to subprojects to define the organizations they want.

  • Will write up a pre-JEP issue to propose goals and principles around shrinking Jupyter’s GitHub organizations to invite community feedback.

Apr 01, 2025¶

Attendees¶

Attendees¶

• Rick Wagner

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Afshin Darian

• Jason Grout

• Zach Sailer

• Chris Holdgraf (second half)

Notes¶

• NSF Proposal, follow up on logistics related to this task

• SSC discussion surrounding how we can encourage better collaboration among teams. One idea proposed was various groups meeting together regularly, essentially combining development calls for subprojects.

• Jupyter Community Call discussion about how to encourage more frequent meetings. Currently the Jupyter DEI team is planning to host these once a quarter. Discussion surrounding what resources would be needed to host these monthly

Mar 25, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Afshin Darian

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Chris Holdgraf

• Jason Grout

• Rick Wagner

• Zach Sailer

Notes¶

• Discussed the Jupyter Foundation board meeting last week and iterated on the artifacts from the meeting.

• Discussed JupyterCon updates.

  • Discussed how the global sentiment toward traveling to the United States may impact JupyterCon.

  • Discussed exploring having JupyterCon in Europe in 2026.

• Discussed bottlenecks EC members are seeing in accessing resources in the community. Discussed potentially setting up a centralized infrastructure working group to help manage access to central resources.

Mar 11, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Rick Wagner

• Zach Sailer

• Jason Grout

• Afshin Darian

• Chris Holdgraf

Notes¶

• Discussed internal communication channels for the EC:

  • For more permanent information: EC issues, google docs/notes, email list

  • For pinging for attention: private EC Zulip group

Mar 04, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Zach Sailer

• Afshin Darian

• Chris Holdgraf

• Rick Wagner

• Jason Grout

Notes¶

• Process agreement for the EC. We agreed that it’s important for the EC to trust one another’s judgment, and to bias towards action rather than asking the group for approval for everything in order to improve our efficiency, particularly when the decisions are easily reversible.

• Project Management capacity from LF. We discussed whether the Jupyter Foundation should contract Project Management capacity from the Linux Foundation in order to assist us in administrative duties. Major concerns were that the cost of a LF PM is relatively high. Our likely plan will be to try a scoped trial period to learn more about how the PM can help the foundation be more effective, and decide how we’d like to move forward once we have more experience.

• Foundation growth plans. We ran through the pipeline of potential foundation members with LF people, and discussed our biggest opportunities and risks to the foundation. We agreed on the importance of ensuring the Foundation delivers clear value to the Jupyter Community, and to the member organizations, and the interests are aligned. That is a short-term target for our time.

• Facilitation at the LF summit. The Jupyter Foundation board will meet in-person for the first time at the upcoming LF summit. We discussed whether there is value in using a facilitator to guide the conversation of that group. We decided to recommend this to the Jupyter Foundation Board and if there are no objections, move forward with this.

• JupyterCon planning. We are now in the content planning phase of JupyterCon and have identified a program chair. We should be on the lookout for keynote speakers and volunteers that can help with planning.

Feb 25, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Jason Grout

• Fernando Pérez

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Afshin Darian

• Rick Wagner

Notes¶

• Discussion: engaging the Jupyter Foundation more effectively. What mechanisms should we utilize to secure feedback from the community? How can we provide guidance and support to subprojects? For example, the EC can facilitate the Jupyter Foundation Governing Board approving pbudget for specific initiatives at the upcoming in-person meeting in March.

• Discussion: which communication channels does the EC commit to watching - what are some standards we can implement within our group and expected response times? Reference https://executive-council-team-compass.readthedocs.io

• JupyterCon: we’re moving forward and working on launching CFP with the program chair for the event.

Feb 18, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana

• Chris Holdgraf (2i2c)

• Rick Wagner (SDSC)

• Darian

• Fernando (visiting)

• Brian (visiting)

• Zach (Apple)

Notes¶

• Discussion of emeritus EC members potentially forming seed for an Advisory Committee, no decisions made yet

• Discussion of broad EC goals for 2025 (now that we have a new cohort, it’s a good time to re-examine):

  • Make sure launch of Jupyter Foundation is good for the stakeholders: the maintainer community who has been asking for support, the members of the Jupyter Foundation Governing Board, the user community

  • Hold a successful JupyterCon 2025

Feb 11, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Chris, Fernando, Jason unable to attend today

• Zach Sailer

• Ana Ruvalcaba

• Brian Granger

• Afshin Darian

Notes¶

• Welcomed Rick to the EC! Chris and Fernando were out for a CZI meeting.

• Worked on granting access to all things.

• Brian and Fernando plan to attend the next few meetings to help with the transition.

• Discussed individual plans for the LF Members summit. Rick, Ana, Jason, and Zach are confirmed to attend once finances for travel are settled.

• Discussed who could be a possible JupyterCon Program Chair.

• Discussed how to begin formulating a process to direct funding from Jupyter Foundation to Jupyter Subprojects.

  • The Jupyter Foundation aims to support the community.

  • We started brainstorming how to enable funding to reach maintainers. We will take this conversation to the JF Governing Board to continue brainstorming. Ideally, the process to request funds is lightweight and the EC should help support folks looking to request GB funds.

  • Specifically, we discussed Binder’s long term sustainability/funding. Binder is not just a service for tmp notebooks; it’s critical CI for JupyterLab Pull Request.

• Discussed the topic of transparency in EC elections

  • jupyter/governance#255

  • We discussed the pros/cons of transparent voting; it’s important to acknowledge this isn’t an easy topic. The goal is some folks in this meeting plan to respond to that issue to give more context.

Jan 21, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Zach

• Jason

• Darian

• Fernando

• Brian

• Ana (asked to hold off on joining meeting as funding discussion happening)

Notes¶

• Fundraising discussion and update with VP Sales LF

• Discussion of proposal from Ana for recalibration and stability of funding

14 January 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Zach

• Jason

• Darian

• Fernando

• Ana

Notes¶

• Jupyter Election is live.

• Met with LF folks to begin a marketing effort for Project Jupyter

7 January 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ana

• Zach

• Fernando

• Brian

• Darian

• Jason

Notes¶

• Met with a potential JupyterCon program chair

• Met with LF folks to discuss next Jupyter Foundation meeting