Hello Board Readinessers: Two things: 1) I am in the process of updating the Findings and Recommendations documents and will keep you informed as to progress. One of the lessons learned from the earlier version is that the Recommendations have to be more nuanced / balanced and provide some rationale. So, hopefully, they will look more like an early draft of the report for your review. 2) For our discussion. we should consider our role in creating the report. Are we in the limited role of translating the interview results into recommendations? Or are we permitted to (or are we obliged to) add some our own perspective? I am for the latter, we should not ignore the expertise in the room, although it must be done carefully, with great deference paid to the interview answers. The issue is further complicated by the fact that attendance at the interviews was sporadic, so if one is to add her/his own views, it can only be done after reviewing the interview results. Is it sufficient to review the Findings documents, or does it require readings of the interview notes (which is a considerable task? So this is a nuanced discussion. We can start in email if you can but we this should be on a meeting agenda. 3) (Three things). Please think about times when you will be available to meet. We should meet the weeks of August 18th and 25th to discuss the question above and report formulation. Finally) (Four things). I think the report should be skinny where possible. I don’t think we should publish the interview notes (to avoid community members finding fault with their opinions) and am up in the air about in what detail the questions should be published. I think the methodology description should be brief. We should probably get back to each interviewee and ask permission to publish their name. Anyway, another item for discussion. Ok that’s it: four things. Talk to you soon and best regards, Kurt