Attendance: Jamie, Amy, Shaul, Lloyd
Notes by: Shaul

• Short updates: Rita's slide; Name (PICO?); JPL visit (Wed. Aug. 30); Probe + S4 Workshops
• Science Traceability Matrix (Amy) + tasks to WG (Shaul, all)
• Probe Strategy (Shaul, all)
  • need now; a mission should fly asap regardless of r results from sub-orbital
  • a mission should fly if there are detections by sub-orbital

• STM: Need input on first two columns before JPL visit. Shaul will fill in the first column from NASA strategic plan. Lloyd + other group leaders to fill other columns.

• Probe Strategy
  

• Jamie: what we had last decadal 'wait for detections from the ground' - what does that mean? Vague. The key issue is maintaining support for the community. Suggests a common technology program with S4. Also, we are not asked to provide a plan for the decade. We are asked to provide a Probe study.
• Lloyd: situation now vastly different than last decade. Last time we had to wait for Planck results.
• Comments from Charles (by e-mail):
  

“First of all, the point of the current study is to demonstrate a CMB polarization mission that could do spectacular science for under $1 B. The goal is a recommendation from the Decadal Review for a Probe line of missions. One might hope that the Decadal panel would be so impressed that they made a special recommendation about a CMB polarization mission. One might hope, but I think that hope is false. So I wouldn't let it drive us in any way.

Which brings me to the point. We should write a report that says a <$1 B mission can do spectacular CMB (or whatever) science. We don't have to agonize about when. If a Probe line is instituted, we'll compete, and the question will be addressed then. If a Probe line is not instituted, the question is irrelevant. For now, we can ignore the question about when. But we need to be really, really serious about less than $1 B!! And spectacular science.”