- Next up is our business meeting and we have a few items to take care of and then we're just going to open it up for general discussion. I think Laura is on. I don't know that Laura has a lot to say about SIG3 because we've had a very extensive overview of the finance interest group 3 on the synergies between solar system, planetary astronomy and Exoplanets at the last meeting in that mini symposium, but Laura, if you'd like to add anything about current and ongoing activities, please give it a shout.

- Hi, Michael thanks. Yeah, we are continuing to run our ExoPAG SIG3 tutorial talks. So it's happened about once a month where we invite on alternating months, either an exoplanet or a solar system focused astronomer. The most recent talks we had covered the James Webb Cycle 1 program for both Exoplanets and solar system observations. Those talks are archived on the Nexus website and we are continuing to have good group discussions on the ExoSS Slack Channel. If anybody would like to join, I can put a link into the chat. Our tutorial talks are on hold over the summer, but we will bring those back in the Fall after a nice break.

- Terrific, and I can't see, but hopefully somebody will pop into the chat some of the links that you just mentioned. This is a wide open group, there are many members of different planetary science analysis groups involved and of course it's open to the Exoplanet community. We're trying to coordinate this sort of big tent here and yeah, we look forward to having more people participate as whomever wishes to is welcome. All right, I don't know, let's see if there are any questions for Laura, great. Next up on our agenda. Okay, I'm having trouble seeing it right now,

- Okay, from Diana Dragomir, where can we find the demographics gap list?

- So this is for Jesse, I'm not sure Jesse, we have that posted anywhere.

- No, I can't, actually it's in the slides that I presented in January. So I think Jennifer, those are still available somewhere, right?

- So maybe if we could post a link to the January agenda where there's a link to the slide or a more direct route, but thank you for the question.

- Yeah, they were presented as a PowerPoint presentation, not as a report.

- Okay.

- All right, thanks Jen for shouting that out. And we always collect suggestions for things we should do from the community at these meetings and now is the time in our program we accept reports back and tells us what kinds of progress has been made on the things that are on the list. And I don't know if Eric or Carl is prepared to walk us through that list.

- Yep, I'm here Mike.

- Okay, so I just have 2 slides on updates, we actually did not get to suggestions, I believe at our January meeting, due to the cancellation of the end of the meeting. So this is the first we've covered them since June. The SAG 19 report was submitted, I believe it started a suggestion a long time ago, but that's the findings on rigorous contrast metrics should be factored into yield estimates for the next round of NASA exoplanet mission concept study. So I think it's just, people should be aware of that finding, and it spawned a few papers, but if anybody's thinking about this topic or using it in simulations for emission studies, they should definitely familiarize themselves with it. Define RV strategy to reach precision of 1 cm/sec per the recommendations of NASA Exoplanet Science Strategy. So this has gone very well. The last few years after the ESS report came out in 2018, launched the EPRV working group, we have the recommendations of the working group, there was a new EPRV foundation science ROSES Solicitation, you heard Hannah talk about, I believe it was something like 2 dozen submissions and 6 awards, the future of that will depend on the decadal. The EPRV working group, although they submitted their final, their presentation of NASA Exoplanet in March, they're going to, their final report's almost done. It's actually under review now by the the Exoplanet Technical Analysis Committee that I believe is almost done. So that report will be posted soon, I think sometime in the next few weeks. Otherwise we're waiting for the decadal recommendations on where we're going to go from EPRV. But now we've got a community blueprint on where to go for both NASA and ExEP. There's general comments over few ExoPAGs, about improving the ExoPAG website, so we've gotten that in previous months. So we've added an archive of the old, of some of the key items from some of the ExoPAGs announce emails and we have a featured news box and such. So if you have any more suggestions on improving the website please tell us, so we put some work into that here in the last 6 months. Started the ExoExplorers speaker and career development cohorts. You've heard the great talk by Tiffany Katari on this topic and thank her for her leadership on this, the first year went great, the talks were great. If you didn't catch them all, please go back and catch the presentations. And this looks like a promising program that's going forward and I believe it will be supported in future years. There's it was a longstanding suggestion on an opacity web server for atmosphere modelers, I remember there was discussion on this. There was a 2016 white paper, I think led by Jonathan Fortney and this ended up being addressed through an unsolicited proposal where this is totally outside of ExoPAG and ExEP but we just got an update from Natasha Batalha, she said NASA Ames we'll be posting at opacity web server. They got an award from this NASA for an unsolicited proposal and the beta version will be available in the Fall or Winter. So if you have any questions on that, I encourage you to reach out to Natasha at Ames. So that's great news. Mission star target list for the Exoplanet archive. This has been a work in progress so we have an internal list developed from the Starshade Rendezvous studies that folded into the EPRV working group. So we have a huge spreadsheet there, but it needs some work before being posted and some more discussion on exactly what criteria went into selecting the sample. At this point the decadal is going to come out very soon so I think at this point, we're going to hold off until the decadal comes out and set SAG 22 is obviously active and looking into what data holdings, eventually we'll need for the, for our target stars. Citizen science, I think this is mainly a suggestion for the EC to consider, but there has been some suggestion of having a talk on citizen science and a future ExoPAG. And I think it's just not been scheduled the last couple. That's it, that's the 2 old ones, do you want to hold off on the suggestions that were submitted?

- I don't think so. I'll just say that these 2 ideas about having an update on the opacity database seems like a good topic for a future meeting as well as the citizen science. So we'll try to make a special note of that to work them into the program, perhaps this as soon as January. Great, and so if you want to go ahead, Eric, there's a couple of other items which were on the list or submitted through the list last time, but maybe they weren't captured in the electronic one from last time, but I can readjust, I can touch on those after you mentioned the 2 new ones that we received today.

- Yeah. So all I have is the 2 from today, I don't remember if there was one submitted last time, if they did, I didn't see them in this list. So these are the 2 that were submitted this month. One on the habitability standard from Abel Mendez and one on intensity interferometry from Jean Schneider. And I don't, I should probably ask if they're attending, if they want to read them off or briefly summarize them. or if you want me to read them?

- Abel, we can recognize you if you want to speak for a minute or 2 on the first one.

- Yes. Can you hear me?

- Yes, we can.

- Okay. Thank you for the opportunity. This is to establish a standard like we trying to go in the planetary sciences or defining, measuring, habitability. I know that's also one of the objectives of Nexus and the thing is that there's a lot that can be implemented, especially for dinner simulation models, where we can define those standards and measure and compared and characterize models and that might be helpful for actual planet observation and exoplanet observation. Just to compare the different, results from different exoplanets. But mostly it's for terrific and modeling of the DCM.

- Well, I guess this is something we probably want to have the, you mentioned Nexus, we probably want to have some kind of conversation with ongoing activities along these lines recommended in the astrobiology science strategy report, as well as other activities in the astrobiology program within the planetary division. But there's some elements of this, I guess Erica captured in the science gap list numbers 1 and 2, the modeling part, I guess in 1 and the habitability or biosignatures assessment is part of number 2, if I'm not mistaken.

- Yeah, I think that's correct. Yeah, so it might be good to get some feedback further on those 2 gaps, the 2 science gaps. So Abel I don't know if you saw the solicitation for comments on the science gap list, if we need some more language there on this topic, we can do that. But yeah, it sounds like, it sounds like some discussions with, is there an activity analogous to this going on within Nexus right now?

- Yes, it's very similar, it's a quantitative habitability. They have an activity on that. This is very similar, but in that, that one is focused more into exoplanets, I think, and this in particular is focused, it's a synergy between what we do, terrestrial modeling, as planetary scientists and combined with exoplanets. So it's the same standard across multiple disciplines.

- Well and I would think our interests would be more focused on the exoplanets and the wider discussion, I think might be more appropriate for that astrobiology program. But I think we can reach out to them and start a conversation. I would ask you to also provide some input, as Eric said, for the science gap list, there's a great opportunity to do that now and I think we can try to report back on this suggestion at our next meeting.

- So it'd be interesting if, I mean, if there was, yeah, I mean, if there's some recommendation that factors into, formulating future missions, than, anyway, I think it'd be good to get some input on this and obviously the community should check out this link. This is for your white paper, you submitted to the planetary decadal, I believe so. If you could be the focus of the input on this, or, I mean, people can CC us or BC chair, or except scientists, but it'd be good to maybe gather comments on this.

- I see that Jean Schneider is not on right now, but I can read this out and equip telescopes, even space telescopes with very fast picosecond resolution detectors to make intensity interferometric hot, very high resolution angular detection, this has been realized for instance, by Rivet at all. I propose to extend it to an Intercontinental and space-based and even Earth-Moon interferometry. And there's a link to some articles describing this idea and maybe we can reach out to John Schneider and ask him if he thinks it's appropriate to suggest a tech gap suggestion for Brandon and Nick to review. And so I think that might be a way we could deal with that going forward. I have, Eric if you allow me to share, I can just get to some other, let me try this now, get my slide deck back here, hopefully. So again, there are the links and I hope again, Jennifer or someone else can put in the links for the place to make suggestions. We're going to keep that active for a while, as well as a place to propose findings if people have new ideas, they would like to share. I'll just go ahead and I know these were submitted Eric, because I actually submitted them on the comment forum last January myself and these are topics that we had discussed in the EC already. So maybe you thought that they were already covered, but... Along the lines of what you suggested in your report, we've been talking and deferring discussion of starting up a new SAG based on re revisiting the risk mitigation strategies and the science impact of studying the exozodiac. We have the results from the HOST survey, there are new results from AlMA in the last years, there are new results on high contrast imaging of debris discs, and so on. I don't know if John's Davis is still with us, I know he had to leave early today, but he was interested in speaking to this. It's certainly a topic on which he's an expert.

- I'm here.

- Oh, thanks, John. I hope you were able to make other family arrangements.

- I've got maybe like maybe 5 minutes so hopefully...

- Okay, go for it.

- Yeah. I mean the main idea is that SAG-1, which is now almost 10 years old is the last time that there's been a SAG on sort of the risk of exozodi to direct imaging And so I think it's a time that we maybe revisit this because there's been a lot of progress in the field over the last almost 10 years. And I think the biggest thing is just now that we have hosts survey, results under our belt, that gives us some sense of what the population of exozodi is might be, but there's still this large uncertainty between converting from infrared emission or an ILR/L star into what that really means for scattered light intensity. So that has a big impact on, essentially a big impact on what that would mean for visible light direct imaging surveys. So that plus just all the advances that have occurred in the last almost 10 years, I think it makes us want to revisit the science here and see where it might lead us. Yeah, and I think we had talked about this often on, but I think now it's the time to move, right? We have enough from a meditation perhaps and a normal next step here would be, maybe John would be willing to take the lead, we would formulate some overview of what this might look like along the lines he just described and then we might send out through ExoPAG announce to call for interest, people who might be interested in helping to organize this effort. Some subset of that group would then come together and write a draft terms of reference for this SAG. The EC would review that and make some recommendations and commentary go back to the group to refine, revise and then we would take that and present it to the APAC. And ultimately it would be the director of the astrophysics division, who would say, yay, verily, you shall go and create a SAG. And then of course we re advertise it and open it up to the whole community and anyone who wants to participate is very welcome. These are all grassroots efforts, lots of free labor, excellent analysis that NASA gets for free, wonderful scheme, but I think there's enough interest here, John, to move forward. I don't know if anyone from the floor wants to comment? I'm sorry, as presenting, as sharing, I can't see any hands that are up.

- I am looking out for you, Michael. I don't see any at the moment.

- Go ahead and comment, Eric, if you wish.

- I'll just say, well, I had the, by the way, I now remember these slides before, they were in your presentation. I didn't have them in my presentation so that's why I missed them. Yeah, it is, as I mentioned in the science talk, where to go from here for characterizing exozodis, we've already identified it as a problem and I think that the decadal is going to sort of set the scope, the importance and the urgency of this topic. And in terms of what efforts, if any, should be supported going forward on characterizing exozodis and what are different avenues for characterizing them, I think we need we need some community assessments. I'm going to say this is long overdue, so.

- Yeah and again, we're a little bit tied to the decadal but it works out in this case because I think the next APAC meeting will be in October or something like that. And that would be a perfect time to ask them to approve another SAG on this topic. So if anybody wants to support this, just give it your thumbs up in the emoticon button on your WebEx and otherwise thanks very much, John. Yes, all right. That's definitely enough to keep going. I'll add my thumbs up there too. You can see it against my virtual background. The other topic we've discussed the last several months within the EC and it's gained, at least amongst the people we've consulted, some traction is this idea of common standards for publishing. Now, try to keep clear, we have the exoplanet target lists archive attributes, that's SAG 22. Jessie just told us about what things would be needed for demographic studies. And then separately, just everyone publishing work a day, exoplanet discoveries, if I can even use such a phrase, maybe there are certain kinds of things we just want everyone to publish and that's what Dimitri and colleagues have been thinking about. And Dimitri, if you're still on, I'd welcome a minute or 2 from you describing what you're thinking about here.

- Yeah, I'm here. So as Michael said, this definitely is kind of drilling down into just one of the aspects of the things that SIG-2 is considering. And so we just heard from Jesse all the amazing things that, that group is doing, but there might still be a gap in terms of the publication of individual orbital fits for one planet or for one system at a time. And as many of us know, there's a lot of inconsistencies out there about how parameters are presented, not just between detection methods, as Jesse was saying, but also even for a single detection method. People might flip coordinate systems or call something by 2 different names that aren't necessarily synonymous to somebody else. So, as Michael said, we've been discussing internally what this activity might look like. We've had input from subject matter experts who are outside of the EC in the form of this running document that has just kind of turned into a stream of consciousness conversation. And so it's not clear yet whether this rises to the level of a new SAG or SIG, or it could be a different form of activity, but many of us agree that there's something here, in particular, in terms of engaging with editorial boards of the various journals that publish these types of papers and perhaps going so far as to provide templates or best practices for use, and maybe even getting editorial staff hopefully to enforce some level of consistency, which I think would make the lives of people who maintain these catalogs like David and the Nexi folks and the encyclopedia folks and everybody else out there who tries to combine data much, much easier.

- Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, I was just about to say that anybody who's interested in this topic should 100% reach out. We're still very much in conversation phase about this and we welcome all input.

- And I guess from an ExoPAG perspective, we think that having such a thing would enhance our ability to achieve masses objectives more efficiently, right? And of course it is an international concern. And as Dimitri mentioned, we're touching on journal practices and we don't dictate those, but we could recommend best practices that people might follow and it might catch on. And so we might, at some point, want to send whatever document was prepared to the IAU and you'll have people in that, one of the working groups too on that. It's not out, we don't control that, that's outside of the ExoPAG purview, but nonetheless, we could lead the conversation. And if we felt it was really helping NASA achieve its strategic goals, we could certainly do that and that would be a very valid thing for us to do. So I guess we'll think about, well, if anyone wants to chime in here or give the emoji thumbs up, that would be an interesting show of support for this. And then again, a natural next step might be just what we said, we could send an email with an expression of interest, along the lines of the verbal one you just gave Dimitri, and then people could chime in and say, yeah, we'd like to participate in that conversation. We could draft a terms of reference even if we wanted, you know, a SAG doesn't have to take a year or 18 months, it can take 3 months if that's all it takes. It just, would it be useful to have a 5 plus page document that describes some analysis? And if that's true, we could try to do a, we could do a SAG.

- So Michael, my recollections of the one concern about doing it in a SAG that can be up to 4 to 5 months to get SAG approved. And I realize that we can start preliminary side work, but that was one of the concerns we had earlier.

- Yeah, that's absolutely right and I guess it does depend a bit on who the consumer of this kind of information is because if it's not for the director of the astrophysics division, that's why we have SAG, it's to provide analysis directly to the director of the astrophysics division. But if we simply want to highlight these ideas, I don't think there's anything preventing us as a community from talking about this, coordinating efforts that we think would be useful to NASA and whether or not it needs to be consumed by the astrophysics division leadership is perhaps another matter. So that's a good point, it doesn't have to be a SAG. But you're right. I mean, the APAC meetings only happen every 3 years. Arcane rule, the SAGs can be approved at any time by the astrophysics division. Paul Hertz established a very nice and collegial policy of asking the APAC to comment on these suggested SAGs and SIGs. And he stuck with that tradition and APAC provided input or advice and then Paul usually accepted the advice of the APAC, but it doesn't formally have to go that route. I'll just mention finally that, sorry, does someone want to comment?

- Hey Mike, just a brief comment on best practices and document. You know, it's not really, I don't really know whether this is of interest specifically to the astrophysics director, in this case Paul, or whoever replaces Paul, rather a general concern for the community. And so it doesn't necessarily have to be a SAG if there's enough emphasis and energy within this group to write up a best practices document, then the community should feel free to do that. A best practices document was written in general for all of the archives or the community of which there was an extra credit section, but it crossed all of science. And that wasn't a SAG activity, that was a community activity. And so I think the, it doesn't necessarily have to be a SAG in order to accomplish what you're looking to accomplish, with Dimitri, what you're looking to accomplish. I think we can garner enough community energy into this to write a best practices document and present that in particular to the journals and to the, to the IAU as Mike indicated. So it's my opinion that it doesn't have to be a SAG in order to accomplish what you would like to accomplish.

- I completely agree with you, and I think the issue is whether or not it needs to be an ExoPAG activity and it certainly does not. And there has been some delicacy about whether we should be perceived as organizing it or branding it. As a community, we should probably just do it. And whether it has to be an ExoPAG, it doesn't have to be, but whether it could be an ExoPAG activity is maybe the relevant question. So maybe I'll...

- Yeah, for sure. I mean, there's lots of people who have, who would like to contribute to this, both who are on this current meeting and who are not.

- So maybe this is a little bit of an arcane issue that we'll ask for some guidance from ExEP and Hannah whether an activity that was super useful to everyone, but doesn't have to be done through the ExoPAG should be or not, I don't know. We just all want to do good things anyway so I don't know that we need to get hung up on the legality of it, but we certainly don't want to violate anybody's methods of operation for these bodies, that's for sure. But I think we all agree, it's a really valuable activity and so it must continue in some way, shape or form. And so far Dimitri and the colleagues who have been scrutinizing this Google doc have really done us a service in pushing the ball down the field, to use a sports metaphor. And we'll have to see where we go from here, but thank you, David.

- Mike is the Google Doc advertised?

- I'm going to leave that to Dimitri. I mean, it is a little bit of a chit chat amongst the 6 or 8 people and whether there are odd personal jokes between 2 people that need to be advertised to the thousand people on ExoPAG announcement. I don't know, but we'll consider promoting some version of it. And then maybe we can share that with the ExoPAG community through ExoPAG announce and then maybe that would be part of the invitation to participate in an interest. And we'll get some consultation on whether this needs to be an ExoPAG activity or whether we should spin it off to another, it's a community activity, there's nothing against anyone doing that.

- So Mike, maybe an immediate task would be to go through that document, maybe Dimitri and whoever, can decide, call out the relevant pieces so that, a good summary is put together of the issues that we're trying to address and then that would be a good starting place.

- Yeah, I think that is what we'll do next.

- I mean, I think there was a lot of energy, Dimitri, in our conversations, but, and then when we get off, because we got distracted by other 8,000 random things.

- Yes. I think that we at least all agreed on what the points of contention were or what are the things that were most commonly published in different ways or and I can definitely generate that summary and then we will, as Michael said, circulate it.

- That's great. Thank you so much. I guess I'll just comment, we've talked about this before as well, whether an analysis would be valuable of the potential synergies between ground and space based technology and science algorithm development in the areas of high contrast imaging. Some of the elements of the technology plan that Brandon mentioned touched on this, but whether there's something specifically interesting and useful that we could do considering the ground and space-based synergies, I think that's a conversation and it's also ripe to have, it might be quite fruitful in the context of whatever is said in Astro 2020. And this is something the EC will be revisiting and pushing forward and we're hoping Michael Bottom can help us in this conversation too since this is one of his areas of expertise on the EC. And this is something else you might hear about from the EC or through ExoPAG announce, inviting possible participation. This has come up a few times at meetings and maybe now's the time to decide yay or nay whether we really do something about it, but it would be nice to know what's in the survey before we pushed it forward one more notch. They're always these synergies, but whether it is in NASA strategic interest to ask us to do an analysis of the synergy so that they can potentially develop programmatic instruments that would help this happen is another matter. So that's what we have to think about. And does anyone else from the floor have things that they would like to comment or share? Jennifer or whomever is helping us monitor, are there any hands up?

- I do not see any raised hands quite yet, Michael and I also have been keeping an eye on the Q&A tool.

- The Q&A as well, okay. Well, I'll also just add, we didn't receive any suggestions for findings and in a normal period, this meeting would have been a great opportunity to discuss any potential findings that we could then work, revise, bring forward in a more full form in the January meeting for a vote. You heard a couple of things talked about, maybe Jesse wanted to put her, the consequences of the SIG to report up for a finding, that's possible. We would probably want to schedule another community forum where we would discuss the merits of that and gives people an opportunity to comment pro or con or may ask to make some revisions in a potential finding and then after we've had some kind of community discussion, then we would feel comfortable bringing it to a vote in a future meeting like the January one. So we will keep these links or places on the ExoPAG website where you can put forward ideas for future activities of any sorts that you think would be valuable and to put forward versions of findings that you think you would like to community to discuss and refine and potentially vote on at a future ExoPAG meeting. This is something we really want to keep this process going moving forward and I hope we can do it every year and just have a letter to the director of the astrophysics division with our community-based broadest consensus points that we want to emphasize for the leadership of the astrophysics division. But we don't have to put a finding if there are none that need to be put forward. This is a time of transition, of course, as we're waiting for the survey priority, So maybe it's natural that we don't have any to discuss today. But I just want to emphasize this process and that we hope to continue it and that there always will be an opportunity and at any time of the day or night, you can go onto the website and enter in something which is a potential finding for future discussion and possibly vote. Let's see, I'll check the chat again. Probably tired of hearing my voice and looking at my face so welcome anyone else if they want to take the floor. I do have one more topic that I want to mention and then we'll call for any announcements from the community, we do anticipate another community forum. That's why this meeting was only one day, we're kind of saving one day of your time that we might ask for in a future for a community forum to be held after the survey is out. And I just wanted to comment on what that might look like. Of course, we will wait for the survey to come out and organize it soon thereafter as possible. I want to make clear though, this isn't really an opportunity for us to get together as a community and say what we think was wrong with the survey, that's sort of not the point, I think the point would be more for us to be as clear as possible in our understanding of what the survey says. The survey took a long time and a lot of people contributed to it so it's not particularly useful for us to say they did something wrong, this is not the time for that. But we would be very valuable for this whole community, for the exoplanet parts of the survey report, to be very clear on what it said and to understand it as fully as we can. We could invite members of the committee and I've tried to put a link here in my slide for where you can see the members of the committee, there are several, a couple of colleagues who are on this call, who are members of that committee, and we could invite the exoplanet cognizanti on that committee to come and help us understand the report as they're able to. And Hannah alluded to this in her talk earlier today, NASA within a few months, I think, I don't know if it's specifically mandated as law for 3, but within a few months of the survey coming out, they need to make a formal response and they would do so. This, again, this community forum would not really be an opportunity for all of us to shout at NASA and tell them what they should do in response to the survey. I think we should wait until they come out with their formal response and then we can talk about that with them, but this would be an opportunity for us to really make sure we understand what this means for us going forward in terms of the recommendations. And I'll just add that we were thinking at this opportunity to meet again, there could be a few other things we would want to talk about as a group. The report on from SAG 22 would be particularly useful at that time and so maybe some other agenda item topics would come up that would be really valuable to pair with a community discussion about the survey. So I just wanted to update people on what that meeting might look like. I don't know if there are any questions about that? The survey came out in August, maybe we can have this at the end of September, something like that.

- Michael, can I ask a question about that?

- Yeah, please.

- So, I'm trying to remember from the last decadal survey, I mean, the decadal was a cross agency initiative that, among which NASA is one of the agencies that pays close attention to it, does NASA itself typically provide any sort of response or evaluation of the decadal on its part? Either from the APD or even the administrator?

- Yes, that's what I was just referring to. I mentioned this morning, so NASA has to respond to the survey for the NASA specific parts of what the survey says.

- And is that, what was the timing of that response?

- So I think it's within 3 months, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it some number of months, after the survey come out, NASA has to respond. And then you can imagine the conversation about whether people like the response or whatnot.

- Okay, thank you.

- I don't know Gary or Hannah, if any, you want to correct if I'm misspeaking please.

- No, I you're right.

- Or Doug, sorry, Doug.

- So a couple of things really happen, right? Yes, formally we have to respond and that response, it does, that response does have to come 90, it's probably 90 days. You're probably right, Mike. It's reasonably quickly and, but that will also be a relatively brief response saying, Hey, what a great job, we love decadal survey, we're looking forward to going by it and obey, here's a few things we're going to do, right away. And then what will happen on a little bit longer timescale than that, but which will ultimately be more informative, I think of our thinking, is we'll come out with a new version of our implementation plan, which we update every few years. Which talks about what we're doing in the context of the decadal survey. That will take longer and will be a more comprehensive sort of document. But that is not the response to the decadal per se. The response to the decadal will be a more brief and to the point sort of saying that, that is quickly.

- Thank you, Doug. And I didn't mean to, you're the chief here, so I didn't mean to skip over you in the list of potential respondees. I'm thrilled that you're on and able to answer. Thank you so much. Does that answer your question, Josh? And I think others may have had the same question in mind.

- I think so, but I guess now that prompts me to wonder, is there a role for the extra tag in that longer updated plan of action as I was mentioning consulting with the program office of other parts of NASA?

- Well, we can always perform analysis and it's better if they think that analysis would be useful. So we are in a constant conversation with Hannah and Doug and so I think it's unlikely that we would go off in left field and do something unproductive. I think they would try to corral us back from doing that, but I think we can always propose analysis that we might do related to the decadal survey or not and so we'll have to, I guess, see how the process unfolds and what people are feeling as we go forward. But I think, and oh, by the way, the new boss will actually get to say what happens with that and I don't know who that's going to be, so good points. We might get different marching orders. I think, you know, this whole PAG business is sort of, I don't know, Doug, if it's fair to say, it's at the pleasure of the director, but some of you who are as old as me will remember these things didn't always exist. Back before 09, 08, there were no, there was not an ExoPAG. And the structure of the advisory or community input was very, very different. So it could be that that would happen, I'm not saying that will, maybe that's quite unlikely, people are quite happy with this PAG structure, but I think for the purposes of today, this idea of having another community forum, it's not a wrestling match about whether we like the survey or not, it's simply to understand it and it's not to write a manifesto of what NASA should do in response. Those are the 2 things I wanted to convey. And then we'll see where it all goes going forward. Oh, dear, I think that is it. I would be remissed if other people didn't have announcements that they wanted to share with the community. I guess we have a deadline for Sagan registration even. That's July 12th if I got that right. I don't know if Don is still on and she can confirm or deny that date or someone else who knows.

- This is David, I don't know if Don is still on, so registration with the workshop is, I don't think it really closes till the very end, but the deadline for, if you want, a poster up topic submission, that is July 12th. And they're not really chapping the attendance because it is virtual and the number of registered folks is now over 1100 people anyway.

- A real situation of the more the merrier so everyone can join in. That's great.

- It has been one of the benefits of the current environment is that, zoom has enabled or whatever has enabled more people to attend that would otherwise.

- Absolutely. Are there any other announcements that anyone would like to make? Oh, someone is putting in the, Eric, I guess the Test Science Conference, it's August 2nd through 6th, a lot of exciting stuff.

- Registration deadline's coming up soon.

- Thank you, July 1st. Okay, good point. There's a Plato meeting as well, that's not a NASA sponsored activity, but many member will be members of this group who will be interested in that. Eric, you may advertise now, you do maintain a list of exoplanet related meetings, right?

- Yes. I'll post the list here, or the link real quick.

- Terrific.

- If there's any new conferences, workshops, whatever that do not appear on their, please email us.

- EC members, I'm I missing anything? I'm kind of shocked that we're ready to close more or less on time. I guess there wasn't a lot of vigorous debate or new activity or a long list of new activities to sort through. And I know everybody's tired of doing infinite zoom meetings. So I understand the reluctance to engage and prolong. Going once, and any member of the community. If there's anything else you would like us to bring up now. Going twice. Well, as they say, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. Someone's going to end this wonderful WebEx meeting and I really want to say thank you to the entire ExEP staff and Jennifer and all the team who have really made this go well and seamless from our perspective, although we know it was a huge amount of work behind the scenes. So thank you very much for your efforts and also all of the speakers today. Wow, for such a short program, I learned so much. So thank you all for making this mini ExoPAG 24 as valuable as it was. I'm really, really grateful and we all are for all these wonderful presentations today. They'll all be online, so you can check out the slide decks if you missed something. And we've tried to make as many links as useful in the chat here today. But if you have other things you think we should be sharing with you through the ExoPAG website, please let us know. And with that, I think we're ready to close. We should have probably have an instrument or a trumpet at the end of these meetings or something. Great. Thank you all and I hope you all stay well and safe and enjoy some relaxation this summer and hopefully next year will be far better than the previous one. Thank you all. And let's explore, inspire and aspire as Gary said.

- Thank you Mike.

- Thank you all.