Hi Caitlin, John and everyone: We’ve essentially come to the end of our round of interviews. “Essentially” because we are still trying to arrange an interview with Brian King. If that fails, I think we will close out thi phase without an IPC interview. While we arrange for the SubPro round of interviews, I think we should: ONE: Touch up the questions a bit. For instance, the question on surprise, first asked generally about all recommendations, should then be directed a bit, asking questions regarding recommendations the Board didn’t understand, stated were violative of Bylaws, were too expensive, were difficult to implements written, and so on Please suggest amendments to questions for the SubPro interviews. I’ll come back to this group with my own suggestions. TWO (most importantly): I think we should draft our findings / recommendations, based on interviews to date. I’ll create a draft, but please prepare your bullet points (which should include authority, i.e., point to interview responses from which you drew your conclusions). For this, I think I will read the notes from the interviews, rather than the summaries. It is up to you to choose your source material. Caitlin or John, could you re-point me to the wiki where the notes are kept? (I should say re-point me to that. THREE: There are a couple interviewees I’d like to add as detached, objective, yet active members: Christa Taylor (who led one of the small teams created, and Marc Trachtenberg, who was dispassionate and clear in his opinions of issues and the process. Both wanted to move the process forward. Let me know if you disagree; I will take that constructively. (Actually, going down the list of participants, there are a lot of good candidates. . I hope everyone finds this as constructive direction. Please let me know if you have something additional or an amendment. Best regards, Kurt