- I think we are ready to pivot to our business meeting. Hopefully I am sharing the slide, and hopefully you can hear me okay. - Yep, thank you, Micheal. - Thank you, Jennifer. - So this is our agenda for today. Wanted to start with the brief updates on some SIGs and SAGs we haven't heard about already, review progress on actions that were requested or suggested in the past, and we'll see how well the program and the PAG has done in addressing those. Share some new ideas for new activities we might take on in the future, particularly in light of the Astro 2020 report release, and well, get the results from our ExoPAG 26 poll. Talk a bit about future findings, and share any announcements that anyone wants to have, wants to share with the rest of this community. So to start, I showed this slide earlier, the active SIGs two, which we heard a report from at this meeting. SIG three, which we've heard about at previous meetings on the exoplanet solar system synergy. This is a very, very active SAG. There are monthly webinars and tutorials from interdisciplinary experts, trying to guide new members of that community into better understanding of topics that span a whole range of disciplines that one might necessarily be involved in, and know, but wish to, in order to make progress in a more interdisciplinary way. I don't know if there are any special activities or items that anyone online wants to call out from the SIG, but if you email Cathy Brunt or Vicky Meadows, the chairs of that activity, they'd be very happy to put you on the active Slack channel, put you on the email list for the webinars and seminars that they run, or otherwise engage. And I'll just advertise again, that hopefully there will be an exoplanet in our Backyard two meeting that will be upcoming in the next year or so. So stay tuned for news about that. But does anyone from SIG three wish to highlight an upcoming activity? Feel free to unmute yourselves and report. Okay, if there aren't any activities, and you can also go to the ExoPAG website to find links to the spaces that are active for SIG three. And of course, if there are upcoming events, for example, related topics, we can put those announcements in the ExoPAG announce email list. So you'll see them there as well. We heard a report out from SAG 21, their final report, and they're just getting final feedback and they'll make their final report public very soon. The final report from SAG 22 was at the last meeting, but I'll invite Josh Pepper to just give us a brief update on what has happened since then. - Sorry, I took a second there. Yeah, so with SAG 22, we have, we circulated the draft of our final report. We got a lot of good feedback from the community and from members of the ExoPAG, we have officially submitted it. And we are waiting to hear back from ATD about their, about responses. It's quite a long report as a reminder for everyone, it was a comprehensive look about everything that we know about the likely O stars, for which we'll be doing intensive observations of for future exoplanet missions. And we are, and our knowledge of their broad, empirical and physical properties, and what needs to be known about them to maximize the value of future NASA missions observations. And so there's a lot of it also to think about, in the context of the now released Decadal survey report. And so I think that's what we're waiting for APD to comment on, and to think about how to best address the needs that we outlined, and the science findings in that report. - And Josh, if I'm not mistaken, you've posted it to astro-ph, and so maybe in the chat, you could place a link to the report. - Absolutely, I will do that now. - Great, and we heard about a proposal for a new SAG, which we'll come to in just a moment in the agenda. And we'll ask John Debes, and I can chime in there too, on what the next steps can be for that. I think there was a question in the chat about... asking where the link is to propose new activities, and I'm showing it in this slide. But I think someone could also place that link perhaps in the chat, for the Google Form, where people can share new ideas. In the meantime, I'd like to myself, stop sharing and ask Eric Mamajek to share his slides, about the progress on previous activities. - [Eric] Yep, can you hear me? Oops, and it's not... Sorry, hang on a second. And you can see me, okay. So I have a few slides here from, these are freshened up from the last ExoPAG. I'll just split these up into suggestions that seem more or less to be resolved, things that are nearly resolved, and things that are still open. I just, I have a list here of several of them that are mostly from a year or two ago. And I think they've mostly been retired. I'll just briefly summarize them, and factoring its SAG19 findings on rigorous contrast metrics that was published, I think a year ago or something. I think that's been factored, that's starting to get factored into the concept studies. Define RV strategy per the Exoplanet Science Strategy, as with the EPRV working group. There was the EPRV foundation science solicitation, 6 ROSES awards going out. The working group report is done. The, I would say the RCN is getting organized. I don't think it's underway, but it is getting organized. Jen Burton, John Callus would be the contacts on that. Improve the EXOPAG website. I think that has been taken care of. That's in better shape. Start Exoplanet speaker and career development cohort. We had a very successful first year here, as you heard from Tiffany's talk. And the second cohort is underway in 2022. That's great. We had our Citizen science talk from Mike Kuchner at this ExoPAG 25. There's the opacity web server. And Natalie has... I'm sorry, Natasha Batalha has agreed to give an update on that. Probably more appropriate at the next ExoPAG in the spring or summer, at ExoPAG 26, but that appears to have been taken care of outside of ExEP or ExoPAG. That was a NASA funded effort unsolicited at Ames. Is there any questions on this first slide? Okay, so these are done. I don't know if we need to see these at a future ExoPAG, and we'll just pat ourselves on the back and those are taken care of. Things that are nearly resolved. So the proposed SAG on exozodiacal disks, that is getting organized now, you saw John Debes' talk, there's a draft terms of reference. So hopefully that will be underway soon. There was the mission targets list that is deliverable for us in the exoprogram office. And Karl gave a brief summary on that. And I've been heavily involved with that. And now that the Decadal came out, that is changing things up a bit. And I've got a much better sense of the potential targets, but that'll be a deliverable for soon after this meeting. We're hoping to get this out to subject matter experts here very shortly. There's the discussion of common standards for publishing exoplanet discovery. So Dmitry Savransky was leading this. I don't know if he wants to chime in with an update here. I think this is something that's SIG two was, might've been working this. But Dmitry, do you have anything to report on that? - [Dmitry] No specific updates. - So this is sort of, in parallel to SIG two, Eric, and I think we've discussed it primarily in the ExoPAG EC, and consulted others that were invited to join the conversation. And thanks again to Dmitry for leading it. We came to the conclusion, this was not necessarily an ExoPAG activity per se, but one that would be extremely valuable for the community writ large in wondering how to spin it outside of the ExoPAG, that something useful would get done with all the great conversations that have happened already. But I guess this is something we need to come back to with Dmitry and figure out a way, you know, it's sort of broader, and it's international, and it's all journals. And the ways in which we should archive these data. - Well, is this something we should continue to track, or take it offline outside of ExoPAG? I remember the early discussions on this, and it's not... you're right. It's not an international. It sounded like this would be something more amenable to an IU working group, more so than-- - Like you wrote it down. I think we should resolve somehow, but I don't think it is yet. I think if we could set up a somewhat more rigorous mechanism to make sure that something good happens with the work that was already done, then we could consider it retired somehow. - So leave it on the slides for next time? I suppose. It's sort of intersectional between the SIG two activity, the wonderful discussions of the database, and the relation to SAG 22, as well as the ongoing evolutions in the exoplanet archive. It's somewhere... it's sitting between all of this conversation, but how to make sure that it maintains some momentum going forward. I, personally am not sure, but we're open to suggestions on what might be done with this to make a benefit for the community. But it might not be something that the ExoPAG needs to manage or track. So you're exactly right. What are the next steps? I'm not sure. If anyone wants to volunteer something, if they think there's an organization or a forum that would be most appropriate, it really was vectored at common standards for publishing. I don't know Dmitry, if you wanna share your view on what the scope of the useful conversations that were had around this topic. - [Dmitry] We had a lot of back and forth between people on EC, and then a few community members about the, as you said, the scope, like what in particular this will cover and then potential actions. Most of which were focused on providing some sorts of either templates or best practices to be shared with the journals in trying to get major... you know, especially the IOP and European journals on board with recommending standards for new submissions. And then that kind of spun out to this thing where it wasn't a community effort, more so, a engaging with the publishing side of things effort. - Yeah-- - [Dmitry] But of course, there was also a discussion about how this was eventually, more in the scope of the things that the IAU did. - All right, well, I think we'll keep it on the list, Eric, and then really try to take some action before ExoPAG 26, to make sure that it doesn't just die on the Google drive. - Okay, so the, the next one was another... I think this was submitted about a year ago, analysis of synergies between ground and space-based technology. As well as science algorithm development, in the context of high contrast imaging, this can be particularly relevant in the era of James Webb's new developments on the ground, ELTs, Roman CGI, and future direct imaging missions. And the last one was, "Well, we'll discuss this further. "We'll see what the Decadal recommends." Has there been any further thought on this from the EC, or the rest of the community? - Not since the report came out, and I guess we've been quite busy the last two months sort of pulling this meeting together, as I think you know. But it's definitely something now, that we have the report, we've digested it. We've seen the first take on NASA's response. Now it would be the right time, it seems to me, for at least the EC to express some, or to look into this. And if any members of the community are particularly interested in this topic, and feel like it's a good time to spin up a working group to discuss what might be fruitful in this area, they can please reach out to us, any member of the EC. And I think this would definitely be something we should report on at ExoPAG 26. And the outcome of a conversation this spring or winter might be, there isn't anything particularly useful to be done beyond what SAG 19 did, in terms of defining standards, but there might be some useful analysis to be done on what the value of... Yeah, looking at algorithms and other things, what could be done from the ground that is synergistic and useful for the space community to achieve NASA's strategic goals, et cetera? So I think it's something we need to pick up again. - Okay, there was nothing further on that one. We'll just flip to the next one. This is the last slide. These were just, these were two suggestions submitted at ExoPAG 24, one by Abel Mendez, and one by Jean Schneider, on habitability standards, and an intensity interferometer. I don't think either of them is here, at least when I looked at the list of attendees right before I started speaking. They're welcome to pipe up if they want. The only thing actionable, I think I saw, was perhaps ExoPAG was just... I think Abel was to develop this further and get back to the EC. Was there any further discussion on this, from developing? - Not too my knowledge, or if anyone else on the EC heard from Abel, they can chime in. I think we could reach out to them again and see if they wanted to revise, or re constitute this kind of request. It might also be wrapped into other activities related to habitability that the ExoPAG might want to undertake in light of Astro 2020. So that's TBD, but we can certainly reach out... the EC can take that as an action. - Okay, I saw Abel published a huge paper with dozens of authors on this exact subject a few months after the ExoPAG 24. So maybe he got enough community engagement on this part after the last ExoPAG. And the last one, the intensity interferometer. I mean, this sounds like a suggestion for a technology gap. So either Jean, there was a large, you know... There was a public call for community input on technology gaps end of last year, as you saw multiple notices on. So that was... people were always welcome to submit suggestions for the technology gap list, and for consideration for prioritization. So that's just, that's a yearly cycle. I don't get the impression there's anything actionable there by the ExoPAG. I did not see any other, I didn't see any new submissions this year with several notices go out. But did you... are you aware of any other suggestions? - Not to my knowledge, but again, we can share the link again. And I think we just did a few minutes ago, in response to a request, and we really are insincere in soliciting these. And if people would like to shout out now ideas that they have, maybe we can transition back to the other slide deck. - Thank you, Eric. I think we can consider these last two resolved then, from what you've said. - All right, thank you. - Thank you. And let me share again. So now we're at this point in the meeting where people can share new ideas for priorities, and activities, and things we might want to do going forward. The floor is open. If people want to raise hand and make some suggestions. Jennifer, it's a little difficult for me to see the hands in presentation mode. - [Jennifer] Okay, I'll take a look at that. - And if you just want to say anyone's name, whose hand is raised, they're free to speak and unmute. - [Jennifer] Nobody yet. No sir. Probably looking for the participant list, and they're looking how to raise their hand. - And this part of our agenda is the way we used to run around with a microphone and people would share ideas. - [Jennifer] Okay, Josh Peppers might begin. - [Josh] Yeah, I just wanted to ask about the suggestion from Jean Shneider about the intensity interferometry project. Was that specifically intended to address direct imaging detection of exoplanets, or rather precision measurement of the post star radiae? - I'm assuming it's for directly imaging, right? I mean... - [Josh] Is that something that people are working actively on? - I don't think so. I think it was a, it's a very far future. I think it also included lunar observations, if I'm not mistaken. So it's potentially tremendous future capability that one might want to consider. - [Josh] Okay. - Doug may wish to address this. - [Eric] I can chime in real quick. There's been interesting technology developments that have been advancing intensity interferometry, and which would be very interesting for post star characterization. But because of sensitivity limits, I think any kind of exoplanet direct characterization is a long ways away, if ever. - [Josh] Okay, that makes sense. That's why I was curious about it, because it seems like it's plausible for stellar characterization, but seems odd, or oddly unfeasible for different imaging, but I could be wrong. - Doug. - [Doug] My hand was not to address this particular question. - Oh, oh, okay. Well I think we've covered that. And so Doug, you wanna take that-- - [Jennifer] Yeah, at first we had Jake Clark, and then Doug, just to let you know, Michael. - I can let Doug get first. - [Doug] Yeah I just have a quickie. I just want to echo the... the opportunity that has been mentioned by Hannah earlier today, and others, I think in their presentations. We are looking for members of the ExoPAG EC. And I wanna point out, this is potentially an exciting time to be part of the ExoPAG EC, because we will be involving the PAGs. The PAGs in our planning and figuring out our implementation, the astrophysics division's implementation of the Decadal survey. And as the steering committee, and essentially the coordinating group for the PAGs, the ECs will play a particularly crucial role in that. So this is an opportunity, at this point, sort of a unique opportunity over the next two or three years to play a really meaningful role in figuring out how NASA is going to respond to the 2020 Decadal survey. So I encourage you if you're at all interested, there could hardly be, in my opinion, could hardly be a better time to be a member of the EC. So if you're at all interested, I encourage you to get your nomination in or to nominate a colleague for an opportunity on the committee. Thanks a lot. - Thank you, Doug. - [Jennifer] Next, Michael, we have Jake Clark, and then Tiffany. - Can I ruin? My name is Jake Clark, I'm a PhD candidate at the University of Southern Queensland. And I'm a part of the sustainability working group with the Astronomical Society of Australia. And we work a lot in terms of, there was an amazing study that came out two years ago, saying that astronomers in Australia create 40% more carbon emissions than the average Australian. And so there's now a lot of movement within the ASH astronomy community down under, to try and mitigate our carbon emissions. Typically, most of the emissions that we're pointed out there is due to a supercomputer use, rather than attending conferences, which was quite an interesting find. And so, as someone who is now based in America, I was wondering if, what the exoplanet community is doing in terms of sustainability and making our community a more sustainable one? I know there's such great initiatives as Astronomers for Planet Earth, which is more of a community initiative. But I'm just wondering... I mean, I know that the Astro 2020 Decadal plan had some comments about sustainability, in terms of, maybe we should tend to more virtual conferences, but apart from that, there wasn't anything else in there. And so I'm wondering what we can do as a community to keep this as a... keep this on top of our agendas and maybe even creating a working group within our community to drive this forward. - Thank you very much, Jake. I think that's a really interesting point. And I agree with you. That's not something we heard a lot about today or yesterday in Paul Hertz Town Hall. So I think this is something the EC can follow up with. I believe that there will be more responsiveness to those elements of the planning in future communications from NASA astrophysics division related to sustainability. But I take your point. I think it's a great topic that we might wanna go forward with. I don't know what the best- My personal opinion is, I don't know what the most effective and efficient way to do that at the moment, but it's definitely something we can take a look at. Thank you. - Awesome, thank you. - And we may be reaching out to you for suggestions in that regard. - I'm more than happy to be that person. - Thank you. - [Jennifer] Michael, next we have Tiffany Kataria. - Yeah please. - [Tiffany] Hi, can you hear me okay? Okay, great. This was somewhat related to Doug's comment of encouragement for folks supplying to the ExoPAG EC, and it's a question somewhat for Doug, but really anybody, I guess, who has an opinion. To the point of the fact that the ExoPAG EC and the PAGs in general will be potentially instrumental in helping execute recommendations from the Decadal. In terms of those thinking of applying to the ExoPAG EC, would you encourage them to perhaps include ideas, things tying back to the Decadal that they might want to implement during their tenure as an EC member? So this is not just for Doug, maybe, but really anybody who has an opinion. - Doug, if you're still on, I think we'll let you take a crack at answering that. I think Hannah had to run away. Maybe Doug has had to as well. - [Tiffany] It does look that way. I don't see him there either, yeah. So, yeah, maybe Karl or Eric, anyone on the ExEP... - [Karl] Well, I can make a few comments, which won't be as authoritative as Doug's or Hannah's, but it looks like the implementation, you know, of the mission maturation for the future flagship is still several years off. I don't think there's going to be a science team for that, constituted for quite some time. So because of that, I think ExoPAG potentially, can be the main forum where the community can make progress, study little pieces of the problem in the interim that the members are the most interested in. And so I agree with Doug that this is a particularly opportune time. While Helvex and Luvo were going on, a lot of the focus was not within the ExoPAG, it was within those mission studies. And it was a little bit quiet here on those topics. And now I think it's gonna really heat up, especially if we get some good applications from people who are attending here. And who are really interested in seeing the exoplanet recommendations of Astro 2020 come out well and start working on them soon. - So then Karl, would you agree with, in answering Tiffany's specific question? One could emphasize those elements in the nomination letter, the kinds of things they would like to get engaged in. - [Karl] Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Every nominee should have an agenda for what they wanna do on the ExoPAG executive committee. And whether it's sustainability, or it's working an issue, may be with inadequate support for some activity, if you think there's a quantitative case to be made, but mainly it's science analysis issues. What do we not understand that we should understand, to execute the programs that we have. That's where I think the best, most impactful ideas from the community can come in and be made known to NASA. - Great. - [Tiffany] Thanks, Karl. If I may add just one more thing, since I'm one of the EC members that's rolling off. I'm certainly in favor of having someone who has similar expertise, as in atmospheric theory, theoretical modeling replace-me. So if anyone on the line who's in that realm of expertise is interested in applying, wants to learn more about what being an EC member entails, or just offer, feel free to get in touch. Thanks. - Thank you, Tiffany. And I think that's a great opportunity to advertise all of us. We're advertised on the ExoPAG website, under members for the EC, and maybe someone could put a link to that list. Any one of us could give you a sense for what we felt like was a valuable contribution we were able to make, what the time commitments were, et cetera, any questions that you might have. But I think you'll find that all of us would encourage people to participate and it's very rewarding, and we feel like it has become more impactful over time. And we're trying to keep that momentum up, as Doug and others said, rolling into the implementation of the recommendations from Astro 2020. It is a special time, no doubt. Are there other hands raised, Jennifer? - [Jennifer] No Michael, I don't see any at the moment. - Well, as I hope you all realize, this Google Form is going to remain open. And I have to say some of the thinking that we've done a little bit in the EC already. But also in response to Karl's presentation, you can well imagine, we could consider activities in planet masses specific for the kinds of sub samples Karl was talking about, this issue of wavelength range related to habitability versus habited, inhabited... habitable versus inhabited. And as Karl alluded to this issue of, how best to characterize diverse atmospheres, separate from the biosignatures, but then also the issue of the best way to characterize habitable planets with biosignatures. This could be a topic. And I also wanna stress, that any activities that we would do, we would surely draw on the great efforts of many other previous works. For example, within Nexus, there are already active groups in quantitative habitability and other topics that might be relevant to what we might perceive of going forward. And so we would not reinvent the wheel. We would kind of start with whatever materials were out there, and try to shape, and maybe hone them, or explore them in slightly different ways, for the purposes of the exoplanet exploration program. Karl, you also brought up the target list issue and definitions of the habitable zone that would feed into that. That could be another activity. And I think everyone is very excited to hear more about this community engagement opportunity that you suggested as a really exciting way to get the whole community writ large, not just the scientific community, but everyone on board in this kind of activity. It sounds very exciting. So I don't know, Karl, if you wanna react to how actionable you felt your list was, but these are definitely activities we could, the EC could take up the next month or two, and maybe make some proposals with community input leading up to our next meeting, ExoPAG 26. - [Karl] Well, no one should take what I said in my presentation as direction, because the ExoPAG does not take direction from NASA. You're supposed to be advising us, and telling us if we're on the mark or not. So if you put all your filters on and still think that the issues I raised in my talk today are impactful, and worthwhile, and interesting, then yeah, I would encourage you to consider activities to address them. I'd especially like to see some of the key alumni from the Luvo and Helvex teams bring their expertise in, along with your suggestion, Mike of the quantitative habitability folks. And see what they could do about that first issue, about the spectral characterization metrics. What do we wanna count as a fully characterized planet or not. That's an issue where I think that ExoPAG could be the real vehicle for progress, so that we know what the right way to decide between architectures is. - Well, I think there's a lot for for the EC to chew on at our next Telecon or two, but I also really want to stress what Karl said. I mean, my take on these things is definitely different from Karl's, and each of us on this WebEx have a different view. So if you're not liking what you're hearing, we really wanna hear from you, and we would love it if more ideas were were to be populated through this Google Form, the link to which you can see in the slide. We've been a little worried about the lack of input at the last couple of meetings, but I think we can anticipate some of that was due to COVID. We're all still struggling through a global pandemic. And also we've been waiting for Astro 2020, of course, but now it's out, and now is the time to react. And so we can help to shape the next two to three years of activities in this next six months, and get things off to a great start. So we really encourage people who don't wanna speak up now to share their ideas on this Google Form. And hopefully that's the more inclusive way to get more diverse opinions, through the form. - [Karl] It sounds like it might get some submits- It sounds like it might have some submissions to that form, just, you know, in the past 30 minutes. Is there any way we could review those? - I don't know the answer to that. If Eric is monitoring that page, I cannot see it right now on my computer. - [Eric] Sorry, I missed the original question. What was that? - It's come to our attention that there are some new submissions in the last 30 minutes on the Google Form. And we're wondering if any of them should be discussed now. - [Eric] Oh, I'm speculating from like, Sean sounded like he wanted to make a submission. Maybe he has. - Jennifer, are there any hands up? - [Jennifer] Sorry, coming mute again. No, I don't see any Michael. - Josh, I think has just raised his hand. - [Josh] Yeah, I mean, if we're looking for comments and ideas for future activities, I'll be rolling off the EC. But something that really struck me during the discussions from yesterday and today about the NASA initiatives coming up that I mentioned, is the issue of the time domain astronomy. And I'm certainly biased, but I think that there's a huge amount of time domain value of many different, cross... many wavelengths for exoplanet astronomy. And because it so frequently gets tied into multi messenger astronomy, I think there is a risk of exoplanet interests not being adequately addressed, if there isn't a good focus on it from the EC over the next couple of years as NASA develops that project, that initiative. And so I think... I don't know. I don't think it's like a SAG or a SIG type of thing, but I think just focus on that continually by the EC would make sure that exoplanet science is adequately represented within that effort. - Thanks, Josh. I think that's a great point. As you said, it might not be a SAG, but it's definitely something we need to keep on our radar, so that we can remind that community that it's exoplanet science done there too, for sure. One of the thing that sort of came up during Brendan's talk is what role the ExoPAG could play in the technology prioritization after the submissions are made by the community. And I wonder, Brendan, if you wanted to share any thoughts on that, or it's something we should just take up later? - [Brendan] No, I mean, I think now would probably be a good time to talk briefly about that, maybe get reaction from some of the other EC members. So just for everyone's benefit, we had a kind of side discussion, Michael and I. And I have an idea about... that I just wanted to propose to you about how the ExoPAG could be involved in the gap process. So I mentioned where we are now, we've received all these inputs from the community. We're about to divide them up amongst the three program offices tomorrow, actually. So after that, I will have a list of all the technology gaps that are assigned to ExEP. And at that point, my task is to review them all, merge ones as appropriate, maybe decide some aren't even gaps at all, that kind of thing. I do that within the... So the way that unfolds typically, is, I basically do it. I work in close consultation with Nick, of course, and with Karl, and Keith Warfield. And engaging subject matter experts where necessary, you know, if there's like a question about a particular number performance that's quoted in a gap submission. And then I put that all together, and my final work ends up being reviewed by the Exotag later. But I was thinking that a place where the ExoPAG EC, and maybe others who'd be interested, could be involved is in reviewing that work earlier, when I'm done with it, and have reviewed it internally within ExEP. Then I could offer to have like something, I'm guessing it would be like a three-hour review where you guys all listen to a presentation on what I did with all those gaps. And then I would accept your feedback, and you would have a chance to weigh in, if you disagreed with something I did or had other suggestions, that would be a way I could get that from you. And I would certainly welcome hearing your perspective on what I did. I guess, I'll just note that the way the PECAS Core office handles that step of the process is that they actually pass that entire job off to their PAGs. So the fist PAG of the co-PAG do all that work of reviewing. So I wouldn't wanna dump all that on you. I mean, first of all, it's kind of a lot of work and we want it to be done in the next like four weeks or so. So I wouldn't want that, that would probably be too much for this cycle. And it's literally my job to do that. So I think maybe this review would be a better match for your availability, and even for your expertise, because I think some of you probably have a lot of really useful things, and strong opinions on particular areas, but maybe not... maybe you just wouldn't even care about others. So I think that that might be a good way to proceed. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Do you have any questions, and then get your reactions? - Yeah, I think this is definitely something we wanna bring to the EC to talk about, but if other people have opinions, they're welcome to share them. So this is just something I think that will go on our list for things to act on, in the next month or two. - [Brendan] Yeah, Michael, just to be clear, you know, this process is moving along pretty quickly. So I would wanna actually hold this review, probably in about a month, so it's coming soon. So it may be something you wanna consider in short order. It's just that we- It's not something we can debate amongst 150 people here on a WebEx call. - [Brendan] Understood, understood. - Yeah, but thank you. Thank you, Brendan. And what you said, obviously was a trigger that the other PAGs do this very differently, and that's what inspired the conversation. We may be doing it better and best, and so we don't need to change, but we'll try to think about this quickly and get back to you if there's something we want to do in the next few weeks. - [Brendan] Okay, thank you, Michael. - Yeah, thank you. All right, well, in the interest of time, we are gonna run a little bit over. And I had tried to indicate that in the timing listed, at least in my slides, probably not on the official agenda, but now would be a good time, Jennifer, if you could share with us the results of the poll for ExoPAG 26. And let me just say again, everyone, we really don't want to cut off getting your input. So please think about sharing something on that Google Form. This is stilted and awkward, and this kind of business meeting is not as efficacious as the meetings, and back and forth that we have in person. So with luck, we'll be in person at the next meeting and we can have better and more fruitful interactions. But please use the Google Form, if you have strong opinions or good ideas you want to share. Okay, go ahead, Jennifer. - [Jennifer] Okay, thanks Michael. So here we're displaying the summary of the results. Thanks everybody for responding to the form here and voting. We had 81 responses, indicating 70.5% of the folks would prefer an ExoPAG 20, sorry. Yeah, ExoPAG 26 meeting, in conjunction with AAF this summer in Pasadena, if we have the opportunity for an in-person portion. And that would be around June 11 through 12. - Okay, there you have it. I think we'll take that under a strong advisement. And there might be other considerations that the ExEP or others share with us that would make that inconvenient or unfeasible. But I think the default position would be, we'll go ahead and try to connect up with what will probably be a much larger than average summer meeting in Pasadena, given the unfortunate canceling of the January AAS in Salt Lake City. Thanks for setting that up, Jennifer. And thank you all for participating in the poll. I think we are now at the final item on our agenda. And may I share again? Let's see. I'm in the wrong space. Yes I can, of course. One more time of the slides and announcements, and I would like to call on Erin May. I think she's online, and I think she has an announcement she would like to make. - Yes, thank you. Yes, so we're organizing an early career seminar tomorrow and Friday, to help the early career members of the community who had their AAS presentations canceled. So I'll throw in the chat where to go to register for that. We have a very packed schedule for the next few days, and we hope you'll all join us. - And Erin, I think there was a great response from the early career researchers. They're really excited to present their work. And here, I think you are recruiting an audience who might be interested in learning what these excellent young scientists have been doing, and, you know, make their programs... their presentations even more impactful by reaching a broader audience. - Yes, definitely. Our agenda is set. You can find it at the link I just sent, but please come watch these talks from all the early career members of our community. - Thank you Erin. Oh, and there's a Slack channel for networking and hiring. That is even good news too. Great. Does anyone else want to share an announcement? Or any final thoughts? I'll fold to my last slide here, which was going to be... Oh, I had two other slides here. Any other announcements though? And this is, you're really getting hit now with the message to propose, to volunteer for the ExoPAg EC. There are many great reasons why, so please do consider. And we really want to try to make this body as diverse as it possibly can be. And starting with that, means to recruit from the most diverse groups possible. We'll try to improve the advertisement of these announcements, but please do consider nominating colleagues of yours that you think would be excellent members of the EC. Jennifer, are there any hands for final announcements? - [Jennifer] Not that I can see, Michael, no. - Well, and I'll just remind you, as I mentioned on Monday, we have also instituted this new process of trying to generate findings on behalf of the community that we would pass to the director of the astrophysics division. And we've managed to pass four of those findings to date, three in 2020, and one was not voted on during our synchronous meeting, but because we had to cancel our meeting abruptly January 6th of last year, we did an online poll for that finding. This is an opportunity for the community to propose a very specific finding related to the ExEP program that you wanna pass to the director of astrophysics, to discuss, and debate, and reword. Or change the finding in some way that would make it suitable to a very broad segment of the community. And then to have an explicit vote at one of our meetings where we can affirm with two-thirds or greater majority, a finding that we would then pass along, and perhaps give it more weight than a white paper that a few people might write on their own. So please don't hesitate to share ideas for those findings. And if, again, we could share the link for the Google document where people can propose findings in the chat. That would be ideal. Okay, great. Thank you, Jennifer. And with that, unless there are any final comments from anyone, I think we are prepared to declare this meeting adjourned. Let me again, thank Jennifer Gregory, Rebecca, Ray, Jennifer Bert, and Eric Mamajek, who are our online moderators. Many other people whom I'm forgetting, Christine Muran and Gary Blackwood, all the support behind the scenes. This one was really quite difficult to pull together at the last minute, but we did it. And it could have... you know, everything can always be better, but I'm just really, really grateful for all the hard work that Jennifer and the team did to make this possible. So thank you all very, very much. Oh my goodness. It's been a long time since we've met in person. Let's hope, hope, hope, hope, maybe in June, and hopefully in Pasadena with the AAS. Thank you all for participating, and we'll be in touch soon. - [Jennifer] Thank you.