April 10, 2008, 3pm EDT

Present: Borrill, Gunderson, Hanany, Hinshaw, Kogut, Laurence, Lee, Meyer, Miller

• Dates are all set.
• Theory workshop has a web site. Many registered. Skeleton program is set. Theorists need some guidance where to focus their work. There are topics that cross boundaries between experiment and theory. ACTION (everyone) - send key issues to Scott Dodelson.
• Basic program for technology workshop is set. Irwin + Hanany are communicating with session organizers.
• Hinshaw and Ruhl to send an announcement about their workshop soon.
• Gary requests mailing lists - ACTION: Shaul will send.

• Report of the EPIC mission concept complete and was sent by mail to members of the community. It is also posted on the PPPDT web site.

• Statement should make a stronger case for promoting the ground and balloon work necessary for the success of a satellite mission.
• Make the case that we are now testing the technologies and concepts for a mission.

• People point out that the statement is broad and diffuse and is not specific in the overall design specs of a future mission, for example frequencies, resolution and sensitivity. The difficulty is that these are exactly the issues that we want to investigate as part of the mission concept study. So - should we wait with the strategy statement until we have a more concrete concept?

Counter argument: A strong case can and should be made for CMBPol based on the science it can deliver. The question of specific optimization is important, but would not change the overall conclusion. The issue of optimization may take a long time to sort out. Those questioning the need for a satellite mission are questioning the importance of the basic science deliverables, not a particular choice of optimization.

• People point out that non-gaussianity shapes up to be an important issue.

• ACTION - Shaul will re-draft the strategy statement and it will be discussed again in two weeks.