Meeting notes from 2026

2026 June 9¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Distinguished Contributors Program

  • Facing low nominations and unclear ownership, the team is considering downsizing the program to one slot per year or eliminating it entirely. Naomi will gauge the Community Building Committee’s interest in taking over the program; otherwise, it may be phased out.

• Payment Procedures

  • The group is exploring standardizing payments for contributors, with Chris suggesting adopting the Linux Foundation’s process for speaker honoraria. Naomi will consult with her finance partner regarding the best mechanism for these disbursements.

• Governance Documentation

  • Any changes to governance page wording will now require independent approval from both the Software Steering Council (SSC) and the Executive Council (EC) via a formal pull request process.

• Council Repository

  • Naomi will communicate the transition to the new “Councils” repository to the community this week. This repository will serve as the centralized contact point for the SSC and EC.

• SciPy Conference Coordination

  • The team agreed to focus SciPy presentations on user-facing subprojects (JupyterLab, JupyterHub, JupyterBook) rather than governance. Chris will coordinate efforts to prevent messaging overlap.

• Renaissance Fund & Sponsorship

  • The team is navigating grant submissions for the CZI EOSS-inspired “Renaissance Fund.” They are currently seeking clarification on Linux Foundation fiscal sponsorship rates (6-9%) and whether the million-dollar revenue threshold includes member organization funding.

• Maintainer Travel Fund

  • To foster trust and relationship building, the EC is working to secure a budget line item specifically for small-group, in-person maintainer meetings. Naomi will provide a comparison of administrative requirements to determine the most streamlined reimbursement process.

• Jupyter AI Unification

  • Zach is leading efforts to unify three parallel server-side document state implementations. While significant progress has been made in resolving interpersonal dynamics and project gatekeeping, the team is waiting to formalize Jupyter AI as a subproject until the technical streams are fully consolidated.

• Open Source Collaboration Challenges

  • The group recognized a need for better “leadership education” regarding open source workflows. They identified a common friction point where corporate contributions are often limited to short, concentrated sprints, which conflicts with the long-term, iterative nature of maintaining open source software.

2026 May 12¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• AI Security and Project Glasswing

  • The team addressed conflicting industry data regarding AI security tools, specifically noting inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of “Mythos.” Naomi plans to share information regarding the upcoming “Project Glasswing” (under Alpha Omega) with the governing board.

• Website Redesign Strategy

  • To avoid past bottlenecks, the project will be divided into three distinct areas: content structure (Community Building Committee), professional design (funded web team), and technical implementation. A hybrid approach, similar to the one used for PyTorch, may be employed to integrate custom features like interactive demos into the new site.

• Standardized Funding Process

  • The EC is formalizing a process for community members to request funding outside of standard proposal cycles. Requests will be submitted via GitHub issue templates in a consolidated repository, acting as a “first-pass” filter before the EC presents them to the governing board for a final vote.

• Repository and Governance Consolidation

  • The team is establishing a new repository named “Councils” under the main Jupyter organization. This will serve as a single point of contact for both the Executive Council and the Software Steering Council. Naomi is tasked with setting this up and implementing the necessary forms by the end of the week.

• Subproject Governance

  • The group discussed the need for clearer criteria on when a subproject’s expansion of scope requires a formal, project-wide vote versus when they can exercise autonomy. While recent additions like JupyterLite followed proper organizational procedures, there is a recognized need to mitigate ecosystem-wide risks.

• Legal and Onboarding

  • Naomi clarified that initiatives must undergo formal legal onboarding to be transferred to LF Charities. Most immediate concerns have been resolved, as JupyterBook and JupyterLite are already integrated into the system.

• LLM Contribution Policies

  • Due to the sensitivity of the topic and concerns regarding safety—specifically for foreign nationals participating in public threads—the team decided against an open workshop. Instead, they will form a small working group to draft guidelines through facilitated sessions, aiming for a balance between ethical oversight and corporate collaboration.

• Managing Competitive Dynamics

  • The team discussed improving relationships with Posit, a recent foundation member. They intend to actively welcome Posit’s participation in subproject meetings and community events while maintaining a professional awareness of competitive market dynamics.

2026 April 28¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Leadership & Governance Structure

  • Jason is set to become the new Executive Director. His role will complement his existing funded work. He will be invited to the next call to clarify his reporting lines (Board vs. EC) and overall priorities.

  • There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether the Executive Council (EC) should evolve into a technical advisory committee modeled after the Linux Foundation (LF). Naomi prefers a simplified structure, though this creates tension with the current, less formal Software Steering Council.

  • Chris suggested the ED should prioritize general strategic expertise and open-source community experience over deep technical knowledge of Jupyter, citing Steven Diabal (former GNOME Foundation director) as an ideal profile.

  • Members are defining their roles as “ambassadors” to gather information on strategic changes across the project. There is a push to automate these updates using tools like GitHub release scrapers rather than manual reporting.

• Operations & Budgeting

  • The EC approved 2-3K from their 25K discretionary budget to centralize Read the Docs access under a parent organization, part of a broader account consolidation initiative led by Matthias.

  • The group voted 5-to-1 in favor of migrating documentation to a unified Jupyter.org platform, noting that the current documentation working group appears to be defunct.

  • Jake raised concerns about the foundation development team’s accountability, pipeline visibility, and the goal of recruiting two new Premier members. Chris advised delivering this feedback to Mike constructively to avoid defensiveness.

  • Meredith (foundation team) will be going on maternity leave in early July, which will likely lead to Mike becoming more hands-on with the Jupyter team in the interim.

• Community Initiatives & Guidelines

  • The group is establishing guidelines for LLM usage in project contributions. They aim to draft a “Community Discussion on Using LLMs to Contribute to Project Jupyter” to gather input without imposing rigid restrictions.

  • A revised governance proposal by Zach was well-received and will be posted in the governance repository.

  • To reduce confusion, the team is working to centralize communication channels and standardize where project updates and governance items are posted.

  • The group discussed the need for formal succession planning for EC members, noting that current member participation often conflicts with their primary job responsibilities.

2026 April 21¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Executive Council Meetings & Structure

  • Rick and Naomi discussed the distinction between the Executive Council (EC) and the Foundation Board. Rick proposed limiting EC meetings to when specific issues arise that fall outside the Board’s purview, rather than meeting on a fixed, frequent schedule.

  • The EC agreed to shift to a bi-weekly schedule with one-hour sessions, replacing the previous 30-minute weekly cadence.

• Technical & Ecosystem Developments

  • The team addressed the complexity of managing multiple server implementations, specifically the challenges surrounding Jupyter Server and Jupyverse.

  • Zach provided an update on the Jupyter AI subproject, noting the ongoing difficulties in navigating technical decisions across different implementation approaches.

• Event Planning & Coordination

  • Naomi confirmed she will manage the public announcement and posting of details for the upcoming Jupyter AI Summit.

  • Rick shared that he has started a new role at Argonne National Laboratory (DOE), focusing on the intersection of supercomputing, AI, and energy.

2026 April 14¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Jupyter AI Integration & Technical Tensions

  • Both Jupyter AI and Jupyter Lite are now officially integrated into Jupyter front-ends, though split efforts across multiple repositories have caused some confusion.

  • Competing server-side document approaches by David Brochart and David Q are blocking Jupyter AI progress and creating a “choosing-a-winner” dependency issue.

  • Zach will draft two parallel JEPs to address these underlying technical challenges, prioritizing a fix for the server-side documents problem despite an acknowledged conflict of interest in authoring them.

  • To consolidate efforts and move forward, the team will focus on shipping and iterating rather than upfront perfection, which includes a proposal to make Jupyter AI contrib an official sub-project.

• Jupyter AI Developer Summits

  • The team finalized the name “Jupyter AI Developer Summit” for two upcoming events in different locations, with potential timing adjustments to accommodate attendance.

  • Jake will manage a free registration system for the summits with Zach acting as backup, and initial travel funding arrangements have been discussed.

2026 April 7¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Cybersecurity & Project Planning

  • Rick and Jake plan to delegate cybersecurity policy implementation to Joe Lucas. To free up his technical capacity, they proposed creating a new role dedicated to handling stakeholder engagement and community communication.

  • Major updates will be shared through monthly blog posts rather than frequent minor notifications. Rick offered to present updates on Joe’s behalf if necessary.

  • A meeting will be scheduled with Rick, Jake, Martha, Joe (Nvidia), and other working group members like Matthias to align on freeing up Joe’s capacity.

• Community, Marketing & Accessibility

  • Ely from Bloomberg was identified as a key contact for Jupyter accessibility. Martha noted that achieving full WCAG compliance on landing pages requires significant engineering effort and ongoing maintenance.

  • Jake plans to introduce a strategy to the marketing subcommittee to create reusable content (event updates, release notes). Member representatives can share these directly with their internal OSPOs and board members.

  • The team aims to launch a monthly newsletter or blog post to track OSPO initiatives and balance marketing efforts to attract new attendees to specialized events (like security workshops) while retaining foundation companies like AWS and Bloomberg.

2026 March 31¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• AI Workshop Planning & Logistics

  • Jake noted scheduling challenges around May 20th due to school holidays in the UK affecting family travel plans.

  • The first workshop used approximately $18,000 of a$20,000 budget.

  • Apple donated an additional $9,000 specifically for workshops.

  • Zach recommended that future funding requests be handled through proper board meeting procedures.

• AI Workshop Strategy & Funding Proposal

  • Jake proposed requesting $30K from the board for AI workshops, with$12-15K coming from leftover funds from previous workshops.

  • Zach suggested opening a separate call for proposals and hosting a distinct AI and Jupyter workshop series.

  • Zach expressed concern that current workshops were too educational, spending too much time tutoring rather than on project-specific work.

  • The team agreed on a need for a more strategic, developer-focused approach in future sessions.

  • Martha acknowledged the intention to target Jupyter contributors specifically but noted workshop naming could be clearer.

  • The AI project needs to focus on intermediate-level contributors who could become maintainers to reduce the training burden on current staff.

• Jupyter Conference & 2026 CFP

  • Zach shared feedback about rejecting approximately 20 student applicants who lacked relevant experience and applied for resume building.

  • Jake raised a question about seeking board approval this Friday for an additional $30K for 2026 CFPs.

  • There is currently $200K available for new proposals out of a total$262K allocated for workshops.

  • Martha suggested communicating with the community building team about prioritizing these funds.

• Project Governance & Communication

  • Darian noted the team discussed creating overlapping meeting times to encourage better communication between the hub and other project sides.

  • Chris expressed willingness to merge the current AI policy as an experiment despite concerns about language and implementation.

• Jupyter LLM Policy Discussion

  • The group discussed conflicting perspectives on whether LLMs create maintenance burdens or enable higher quality code.

  • Martha proposed that the EC encourage neutral sub-project conversations about LLMs to prevent opinionated individuals from driving the discussion.

  • Martha and Zach will lead the drafting of a community-wide post to understand sentiment regarding LLMs.

  • Chris will consult with Kirstie about framing the conversation effectively.

  • The group decided to focus on community sentiment rather than influencing specific JupyterHub policy language.

2026 March 24¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• AI Workshops

  • The next Jupyter AI Workshop is being finalized for London at the Snowflake office.

  • Jake called in from OSSCon in DC, where he stepped in at the last minute for Brian Granger on a panel.

  • The location for an upcoming event was confirmed for the AWS offices in San Francisco.

• Jupyter AI

  • Jupyter AI Version 3 is on track for March 31st. Contributor power is coming from Apple, AWS, and others.

  • Post-release, the focus shifts to unifying the Jupyter Lite AI experience with the main project. The team plans to leverage Claude Code and Gemini rather than reinventing the wheel.

  • Short-form videos are in the works to demo these new AI agent capabilities within notebooks.

• Community Engagement

  • Carla from the UCSD OSPO is drafting a blog post. It will cover students’ qualitative experiences and quantitative metrics from their time in the Jupyter AI community.

  • Jake and Chris are meeting with Jason to iron out the official guidelines for Jupyter’s blog and marketing assets.

• JupyterLab

  • The team is navigating two competing approaches for server-side document state. One prioritizes stability; the other focuses on modularity and rapid feature growth.

  • Zach is meeting with devs to pull LightLLM from core dependencies following concerns about a supply chain attack in the LLM ecosystem.

2026 March 17¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Community Engagement & “The Great Divide”

  • Rick praised Russ’s work in boosting participation at the Foundation level.

  • Chris and Rick are focusing on increasing blog activity for Jupyter AI and Jupyter Book.

  • There’s an ongoing tug-of-war between developers who want to “just code” and the need for broader community discussions.

  • Darian raised concerns about a perceived silo between JupyterHub and other projects. Chris is tasked with figuring out how to bridge this gap.

• JupyterHub Strategic Integration

  • JupyterHub often feels like the “forgotten sibling” compared to JupyterLab because its value proposition is less visible to the average user.

  • The team wants to rationalize meeting schedules and create a clearer narrative—positioning Hub as more than just a multi-user interface.

  • Rick is particularly interested in a single interface for authentication and SSL termination.

  • Darian noted a need for better monitoring of the Jupyter Notebook repository and better alignment during triage calls.

• Product Strategy & AI Trends

  • Darian suggested that JupyterLite should be integrated as a sub-command of the JupyterLab pip package rather than staying separate.

  • Chris is experimenting with providing “product leadership without a product manager,” using specific initiatives as a way to raise funds and align stakeholder interests.

  • There is a major debate over whether JupyterHub should be a generic orchestration layer for any interface (like VS Code) or if it should stay tightly coupled with the Notebook to maintain its unique identity.

• Trust & “Safe Spaces”

  • The team agreed that the technical hurdles are nothing compared to the social dynamics. Past tensions between Hub and Lab communities still linger.

  • They want to create “safe spaces” for sensitive roadmap talks where people can disagree constructively without fear of public backlash.

  • Chris and Darian emphasized that while Zulip is great for tasks, face-to-face interaction is still the only way to build the deep trust needed for open-source governance.

2026 March 10¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Open Source Summit & Prague Event

  • Naomi is securing free space at the Open Source Summit in Prague to host a Jupyter mini-event, improving accessibility for European contributors.

• Event Planning & Strategy

  • Zach expressed concern over managing a 16–20 person event without a rigid agenda. Jake offered to help apply a “roadmapping” structure based on Kirsty’s past success.

  • The team plans to contact organizations in Seattle to introduce the project leadership.

  • Darian noted that some users are migrating to tools like Cursor, prompting a discussion on how Jupyter notebooks are uniquely positioned to excel in human-machine AI interaction.

• Future Workshop Locations

  • Celeste may host the next workshop in New York or London in late May or June.

  • The team is alternating US coasts (NY is next) and exploring a potential workshop in India with Uber’s involvement.

  • Jake is taking over the scheduling and management of volunteer locations for the remainder of the year.

• Technical Strategy & API Standardization

  • Chris suggested a strategic shift toward Developer Experience (DevEx) and API standardization to better support code generated by LLMs.

  • Zach argued for CRDTs (Conflict-free Replicated Data Types) as a core choice for real-time collaboration, though Darian questioned if real-time features should be considered “core” functionality.

• Community Leadership & Member Burnout

  • The team will create a Q&A blog post to introduce Celeste to the community and establish her as a support lead.

  • Zach and Darian discussed the difficulty of balancing Executive Council (EC) duties with their full-time jobs.

  • The group highlighted a need to better align Jupyter volunteer work with the organizational incentives of the members’ employers (e.g., Snowflake’s interest in hiring and reputation).

2026 March 3¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• SSC Leadership & Collaboration

  • In a meeting with QuantStack colleagues, the SSC expressed openness to expanding responsibilities (beyond just JEPs), though they haven’t fully committed to being a “leadership body” yet.

  • The team is looking into an asynchronous collaboration method, likely a task board or dedicated repository, to keep project coordination moving.

• Refining the Meeting Structure

  • Zach is pushing for the SSC to move from a passive role to a proactive one—focusing on technical direction and project vision.

  • To combat global time zone fatigue, the group is considering moving SSC meetings from weekly to monthly.

  • Rather than adding new meetings to the calendar, the team agreed to repurpose existing weekly slots.

  • The previous weekly cadence was primarily to clear a backlog of Jupyter Enhancement Proposals (JEPs); with that manageable, the focus shifts to high-level leadership.

• AI Policy & Technical Direction

  • With Fernando and Brian’s departure, Zach identified the SSC as the natural choice to step into the technical leadership gap.

  • Martha said if Jupyter’s stance on AI appears too restrictive, it could negatively impact foundation funding from member organizations.

  • Zach and Afshin noted that AI tools are already standard in professional software development; the goal is to enable these engineers to contribute without running into “policy walls.”

• Community Engagement & Transparency

  • The team acknowledged that recent AI discussions have been “inflammatory.” The plan is to start a new, neutral thread to gather community input more constructively.

  • Instead of a top-down mandate, Zach suggested creating neutral guidelines that subprojects can inherit.

  • The group noted that large enterprise companies are actively monitoring Jupyter’s policies as part of their software supply chain reviews, making transparency and careful wording critical.

• Naomi confirmed that train travel is officially covered under workshop funding guidelines.

2026 February 24¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Software Steering Council (SSC) Prep

  • The meeting is set for 8 AM PT; Rick can only stay for the first 30 minutes.

  • So far, Min, Johan, and Mike have RSVP’d for the new monthly Technical Forum.

  • Martha confirmed she has stepped down as the DEI representative; Gabriel is likely still handling accessibility.

  • The meeting aims to provide transparency, helping those outside the Executive Council (EC) understand the project’s high-level vision.

• AI Contribution Policy Debate

  • Zach strongly opposes a new JupyterHub policy on AI-assisted contributions, fearing it will discourage new members at the Linux Summit.

  • Chris and Zach debated the tension between welcoming new contributors and the heavy burden AI-generated code places on maintainers.

  • The group is grappling with how much power subprojects should have to set their own policies versus following a project-wide standard.

• Code Contribution & “States’ Rights”

  • Rick argued that regardless of how code is written (AI or human), the author is ultimately responsible for its quality.

  • The team is leaning toward a “states’ rights” model—allowing subprojects to make their own rules unless a policy becomes “unacceptably restrictive.”

  • Rather than shutting down controversial policy PRs, the EC plans to engage with the authors while reserving the right to override them if necessary.

• AI Ethics in Open Source

  • Zach reported that AI has actually improved code quality in his experience, while Martha emphasized the need for strict review and proper attribution.

  • The group is concerned that the current AI debate is being dominated by a single thread, which might send a confusing or negative message to the public.

  • There is a consensus that the project needs a proactive, high-level strategy for AI rather than just reacting to individual PRs.

• The LLM Ethical Framework

  • Chris suggested creating a formal framework for these discussions to validate ethical concerns without letting “extreme positions” alienate the community.

  • Zach proposed a guidance document for subprojects—offering best practices for AI use rather than enforcing rigid, top-down rules.

• Solving the AI Discussion Deadlock

  • Chris noted a “chilling effect” where both pro-AI and anti-AI groups feel they can’t speak freely, leading to unproductive tension.

  • The team is looking into creating specific forums for these sensitive talks and preparing “positive messaging” for future community calls.

  • The discussion will continue next week to finalize actionable steps for public engagement.

2026 February 17¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Jupyter SSC Meeting Rescheduled

  • The meeting is moved to March 2nd at 11:00 AM ET.

  • An email will be sent to SSC members to confirm; responses are required by Monday the 23rd.

  • Discussions touched on community-funded workshops and the need to communicate Executive Committee (EC) priorities based on recent survey recommendations.

• Snowflake Representative Leadership Update

• Celeste, the new representative from Snowflake, expressed interest in leading the community working group.

• Chris is stepping back from the technical working group to mentor Celeste and provide historical context on Jupyter.

• The team decided to table the EC priority discussion to focus on current documented items.

• Jupyter Community Working Group Review

  • The group emphasized its role in roadmap development, contributor pathways, and community building.

  • Concerns were raised regarding the current user journey on Jupyter.org.

  • Chris and Zach discussed the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing community meetings and improve how new contributors are integrated.

• Jupyter Governance & Integration

  • The goal is a sustainable governance model where the Foundation serves as the governing body, rather than relying on specific individuals.

  • Kirstie was identified as a vital leader; the team will arrange a meeting between Celeste and Kirstie to align efforts.

  • There is a noticeable split between enterprise participants (JupyterLab) and academic participants (Hub and Book).

  • The team noted a need for better communication and integration across these different ecosystem projects.

• Jupyter Blog & Website Strategy

• Projects like Hub and Book are currently avoiding the Jupyter blog due to “noise” and attribution issues on the Medium platform.

• Jake clarified that while there is no strict policy, team blogs with individual bylines are encouraged.

• Zach suggested moving 11 out of 13 recent posts to Jupyter.org.

• The primary barrier isn’t technical; it’s the lack of a clear governance process. The team will discuss Linux Foundation (LF) involvement in website management next week with Naomi.

• Workshops, Summits, and Future Plans

  • Zach is attending the Summit next week; Chris may join if travel is light.

  • Zach will be presenting a demo during a “city call” this Friday.

  • The group identified a need for better tracking and communication regarding upcoming workshops.

  • Plans are in motion for a potential meeting with Celeste in London.

2026 February 10¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Email draft to SSC ready for EC review

• Updates for LF Board of Directors

  • JupyterLyte

  • Jupyter Book

  • Jupyter Hub

  • Community Proposals

  • Upcoming Workshops

  • Search for an Executive Director

2026 February 3¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• 2026 Executive Council Priorities

  • The Council reviewed recommendations to bring the Jupyter Foundation into the community and improve resource requests.

    • Darian argued these were too operational and lacked the “big picture” vision the project currently needs.

    • Darian noted the difficulty of managing corporate stakeholders

      • Chris emphasized the need for better information-sharing mechanisms.

    • Jake proposed moving away from rigid annual goals in favor of six-week focus periods with tangible outcomes.

    • Zach suggested members act as “liaisons” by engaging with other communities and reporting back to facilitate better alignment.

  • Project Goals and Prioritization

    • Chris argued that subprojects (like Jupyter Hub and Jupyter Book) must define their individual strategies before the project can achieve a unified cross-project vision.

    • EC will focus on encouraging transparency within subprojects to establish clear technical priorities.

    • EC agreed to better communicate existing goal progress while highlighting areas that need more attention, specifically inter-project interaction.

• Governance and the Software Steering Council (SSC)

  • EC identified a lack of dedicated product management in Jupyter. Chris noted that while engineers handle tasks, strategic planning is currently a “gap.”

    • The SSC is currently not functioning as intended for technical leadership.

  • PMO will draft an email to coordinate a vision-alignment meeting between the Executive Council (EC) and the SSC.

    • The goal is to focus on a smaller, more engaged group with clear consequences and outcomes for involvement.

• AI Workshops

  • Rick and Zach discussed refining registration and communication processes for future workshops based on recent challenges.

2026 January 27¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Student Initiatives and Recruiting

  • Rick is leading a program to help students navigate open-source hurdles.

  • The goal is to use student involvement as a recruiting tool for companies within the ecosystem.

  • Jason and Jake offered to provide insights from previous intern programs and participate as guest speakers.

• 2026 Executive Committee Priorities

  • Members began a brainstorming activity to identify the 2026 priorities for the Executive Council.

2026 January 20¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Roadmap Methodology

  • Top-down (EC-led) vs. Bottom-up (sub-project led) planning.

    • Middle-ground approach = Understanding individual sub-project strategies first, then weaving them into a cohesive project-wide vision.

  • The roadmap should result in concrete actions and priorities, ensuring development time is aligned with high-level goals.

  • The EC should provide thematic direction rather than tactical instructions to maintain a balance between strategic vision and practical execution.

• Potential Technical Focuses

  • Jupyter AI

    • Might be a cross-cutting initiative

  • Notebook Core Improvements

  • Language Kernels

• Community and Organization

  • [Jason] The Executive Council should focus more on community building and growing contributors than dictating technical directions.

  • [Zach] Use Directly Responsible Individuals (DRIs) to drive community energy and progress on specific issues.

  • [Darian] Improved accessibility should be core.

2026 January 13¶

Attendees¶

Notes¶

• Introductions to the new EC member, Martha

• EC Onboarding

  • Removing the WhatsApp group from the onboarding process

• EC Offboarding

  • PMO will begin offboarding at the end of January

• Task Tracking

  • PMO suggested to still use the project board, but ensure that each group has their own and knows they are responsible/accountable. (EC, SSC, GB, etc)

• Roadmapping

  • A brainstorming session was requested to have a 2-year look ahead.