April 3, 2008, 3pm EDT

Present: Borrill, Gunderson, Hanany, Kogut, Meyer, Miller

Shaul reviews input from Chuck Bennet about process for selection of decadal panel

Only a satellite can deliver definitive answer about the power spectrum as opposed to a statistical detection.

A satellite will give cosmic variance limited measurement of the re-ionization bump.

It was a strategic mistake to focus EPIC on the low \ell B-modes alone. The satellite needs to deliver other science as well.

It is very easy to kill a mission. Therefore it is better to move ahead forcefully until there is good reason to not fund it.

Need to make a clearer case for a cosmic variance limited of the power spectrum of B. One argument is the discovery argument: unless you measure - you don't know what you will get.

It was suggested to assemble all of the arguments in favor of a space mission in a review article, for example 'Annual Review' or article in 'Space Science Reviews'. JWST has review articles there. It is very effective with NASA folks. This should probably be the primary output of the theory workshop.

We can strengthen the ancillary science for CMBPol by looking over the case that was made for Planck. We should mine that document. Perhaps Charles Lawrence should review this in a future telecon.