2025 Meeting Notes

2025 July 11¶

A meeting of the Governing Board of the Jupyter Foundation was held on 11th July 2025 at 8:00 Pacific Daylight Time via teleconference.

Attendees¶

Introduction¶

Rus Pandey called the meeting to order at 8:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time and Naomi Washington recorded the minutes. A quorum of Governing Board Members was established for the conduct of business, and the meeting, having been duly convened, was ready to proceed with business.

Washington reminded the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy Notice to which all meetings must adhere. Washington outlined the agenda of the meeting.

Google Voting Representative & Agenda Setting¶

Washington informed the governing board that Eric Johnson will be the new Google voting representative, replacing Ben Bastian. Johnson provided a brief overview of his background.

The group discussed the agenda for the meeting, prioritizing certain items, and agreed to defer some items to future meetings due to time constraints.

JupyterCon Update¶

Deb Giles initiated a discussion regarding reducing the attendee target for JupyterCon this year from 700 to 400, citing cost-saving measures. Giles explained that the original attendance projections were based on past events, but the current climate has decreased willingness to travel to the US. This adjustment aims to lower expenses, especially for food and beverage, while managing the existing budget deficit. Savannah clarified that the foundation is accountable for the difference between anticipated and actual event revenue. Brian Granger provided additional data from the NYC event. It was noted that this situation underscores the importance of considering rotating cities for future events.

[WE HEREBY APPROVE/] Reducing the JupyterCon 2025 attendee goal to 400. [/RESOLVED]

• Savannah motioned to approve
• Chris Holdgraf seconded the motion
• All others in favor, motion carried.

PMO SoW Additions¶

Washington advised the board that including community call and trademark management would classify Jupyter in the Limited tier, allowing the Linux Foundation to allocate more PC/PM-level resources to support the program. Rus Pandey requested a breakdown of time allocation for these tasks. However, Washington stated that the PMO could not provide precise hourly constraints due to the varied nature of team members’ work. Consequently, the decision regarding the PMO additions was postponed, and Washington will re-add this item to the agenda for the subsequent board meeting.

Executive Council & Premier Member Pairings¶

Rus Pandey reminded the governing board of the pairing of premier members with executive council members to foster knowledge transfer and collaboration. This discussion will continue offline. The group also discussed improving information flow between board subcommittees and the community, with Pandey proposing a formalized interaction model. This topic, along with the funding proposal, will be reviewed.

Executive Capacity & Finances¶

Savannah Ostrowski presented a proposal for budget allocation and proposal review processes, which involves budget allocations and goal categories and subcommittees vetting proposals before a full board vote, on a monthly basis. Ostrowski outlined initial figures and potential spending.

Discussion ensued around the budget allocations and goal categories noting they may be too broad. Concern was expressed that an executive director’s hiring would impact the budget, though Ostrowski noted a remaining buffer. It was questioned the linkage of current budget allocations to specific goals, suggesting some categories might overlap, and technical work could be misclassified. Regarding proposals and community involvement, it was emphasized that the need for a public proposal submission process for community members and stressed transparency in spending. They agreed to review and potentially expand the technical subcommittee’s category descriptions for clarity; however, the categories serve as general guidelines, with expanded and more comprehensive descriptions. The governing board also discussed defining who can submit proposals and involving other groups in the vetting process.

The governing board agreed this was a healthy approach, with Pandey emphasizing the importance of the subcommittee vetting process. It was proposed to start the new process in August to allow for proper planning and adjustment.

Action Items

• The governing board is to provide feedback within the next two weeks to solidify the category focus areas for the upcoming board meeting.

Jupyter Executive Council capacity¶

Jason Grout highlighted the Executive Council’s role in conveying community needs to the governing board. A proposal to fund a contractor for seven months was discussed, aiming to provide executive, research, and facilitation support to the Jupyter Executive Council for community engagement. Jason and Chris presented this proposal to enhance the EC’s capacity, offering about 6-7 months of support from a contractor.

The executive council members also discussed challenges with a recent meeting, specifically the lack of sufficient time for in-depth discussion of complex issues. It was requested that a better understanding of the EC’s responsibilities and capacity is needed to approve the proposal. It was proposed to continue this conversation asynchronously through an existing discussion thread.

Action Items

• Add Executive Council responsibilities to the next governing board meeting for a better understanding.

Closing¶

Rus Pandey thanked the attendees for their time and participation, called the meeting to a close, and the meeting of the Governing Board adjourned at 9:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time.

2025 June 27¶

A meeting of the Governing Board of the Jupyter Foundation was held on 27th June 2025 at 8:00 Pacific Daylight Time via teleconference.

Attendees¶

Introduction¶

Zach Sailer called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time and Naomi Washington recorded the minutes. A quorum of Governing Board Members was established for the conduct of business, and the meeting, having been duly convened, was ready to proceed with business.

Washington reminded the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy Notice to which all meetings must adhere. Washington outlined the agenda of the meeting.

Welcome General Member Representative¶

Michal Krassowski was welcomed as the General Member Representative and gave an overview of his background. A discussion followed regarding the public accessibility of meeting minutes. There are some guidelines that the Executive Council is trying out to determine what can be shared publicly.

Washington is tasked with establishing the best process for publicizing minutes and will consult with CNCF PM for best practices.

Yaniv Schahar joined the meeting at 10:14.

JupyterCon 2026 Locations¶

The board discussed and voted on potential JupyterCon 2026 locations. Sailer mentioned an email (detailed in the notes) that listed sites chosen by the community committee, along with Deb Giles’ suggestions for more budget-friendly options. Giles advocated for prioritizing European or Eastern Atlantic locations. The discussion also covered making the event accessible through virtual options for those unable to travel. Concerns about considering a US city were raised, but Washington clarified that this was to broaden the RFP portfolio.

Suggested committee locations:

• Phoenix - 5 votes
• New York - 3 votes (already hosted)
• London - 6 votes
• Paris - 2 votes (already hosted)
• Brussels, Belgium
• Toronto, Canada

Proposal Backlog Board¶

Chris Holdgraf introduced a system for reviewing proposals and identifying problems that could be addressed with foundation funds, accessible via the “Foundation GB Tasks” GitHub organization. He encouraged board members to review the “Proposals Backlog Board,” which is inspired by the Jupyter Enhancement Proposal process, and to indicate their interest in specific items or suggest potential contributors. Washington noted that a similar system is used by another project and recommended creating a template for community use.

Executive Capacity¶

Chris Holdgraf opened the discussion noting a lack of dedicated executive capacity and proposed engaging organizational mycology to address this. The discussion focused on bridging this gap, particularly the need for capacity between meetings to set community targets. It was noted that this missing executive-level capacity, both on the EC and foundation sides, leads to the board and EC engaging in more frequent tactical work than appropriate. Holdgraf sought validation that this is a critical problem and ideas for proposals to fill this gap with foundation resources and the governing board largely agreed.

An interim Executive Director/General Manager with experience leading communities, serving for 6 to 9 months, was suggested. This could also involve organizational mycology to facilitate community conversations. While both ideas were well-received, the emphasis was on moving forward.

Savannah Ostrowski, as Treasurer, offered to help create structure through proposal processes, review cadences, and subcommittee budgets. Jason Grout will collaborate with Stormy Peters to outline the interim ED role, and Washington reminded the group about the established Linux Foundation hiring process.

Holdgraf shared that there isn’t a dedicated executive capacity and suggested securing a proposal to get some executive capacity from organizational mycology.

Action Items¶

• Outline the scope of work for both options
• Washington will share the hiring process
• Understand the full budget implications of adding these elements

Closing¶

Zach Sailer thanked the attendees for their time and participation, called the meeting to a close, and the meeting of the Governing Board adjourned at 9:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time.

2025 June 13¶

A meeting of the Governing Board of the Jupyter Foundation was held on 13th June 2025 at 8:00 Pacific Daylight Time via teleconference.

Attendees¶

Introduction¶

Rus Pandey called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time and Naomi Washington recorded the minutes. A quorum of Governing Board Members was established for the conduct of business, and the meeting, having been duly convened, was ready to proceed with business. Washington reminded the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy Notice to which all meetings must adhere.

PMO SoW Expansion¶

Ana Ruvalcaba informed the governing board that certain board members met with George Peden to discuss the current PMO Statement of Work (SoW) and potential expansions. Proposed additions included trademark enforcement and the Jupyter community calls. Governing board members were asked to suggest further additions before the PMO lead provides an updated SoW. It was also recommended that a quarterly PMO review be conducted.

Discussion ensued around the Jupyter Community Call, described as a “mini JupyterCon,” which serves as a platform for community-led sharing of Jupyter activities. While the calendar is on Jupyter.org, its visibility might need improvement. Discussions covered ownership of aspects of the community call and balancing community involvement. It was clarified that the PMO would handle logistics and organization, not facilitation.

Governing board members were asked to review the SoW and submit any additional scopes of work by Monday, with Washington sending a final notice by Monday EOD.

JupyterCon 2026¶

Rick Wagner led the discussion on JupyterCon 2026 planning. A decision regarding announcing JupyterCon 2026 during this year’s event needs to be made within two weeks. It was noted that 2025 attendance estimates might be too high and should be reevaluated. Site selection can commence without immediate budget commitments, as funding obligations will depend on the chosen venue. More affordable US locations like Phoenix or Scottsdale, Arizona, were suggested. The primary decision is whether to host the event in the US or Europe. Deb Giles may be given three potential sites (two in the US and one in Europe) to consider.

The timing for the event will prioritize Fall, with late October/early November decided upon. Target attendance is 450-500, and regions for consideration were discussed. It was clarified that venue choice is a key factor in event affordability.

Savannah Ostrowski left the meeting at 10:45.

A small booth or table for the Executive Council (EC) at JupyterCon was also discussed.

Structure Collaboration¶

Rus Pandey initiated a discussion about pairing Executive Council (EC) members with Governing Board (GB) members to foster collaboration and address existing gaps. He suggested potentially allocating a small amount of funds to support these interactions, for instance, for activities like group lunches.

Action Items:

• Washington to add this to the next agenda.
• Rus Pandey to create a parent sheet to pair people up.

Budget Priority Visibility¶

The governing board had identified the need for money allocations to be visible to the community and are identifying the best way to showcase how the funds will be used to address community concerns and priorities.

Closing¶

Rus Pandey thanked the attendees for their time and participation, called the meeting to a close, and the meeting of the Governing Board adjourned at 9:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time.

Feb 21st, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Jason Grout (EC, at Databricks)
• Brian Granger (AWS)
• Afshin T. Darian (EC, at QuantStack)
• Chris Holdgraf (EC, at 2i2c)
• Ana Ruvalcaba (EC, Cal Poly)
• Rick Wagner (EC, San Diego Supercomputer Center)
• Zach Sailer (EC, Apple)
• Rasik Pandey (Foundation Board, Apple)
• Stephanie Stattel (Bloomberg)
• Ben Bastian (Google)
• Anna Filippova (Snowflake)

Notes¶

• Program management: discussed proposal from LF about a program manager resource to start in March.
  • The current scope of responsibilities planned is:
    • Coordinate deck creation with ED, Chairperson, other stakeholders
    • Distribute materials, take minutes, follow up on action items, attendance, etc.
    • Support strategic discussions and planning
    • Manage permissions / access to Zoom
    • Event coordination for events (ONLY booth sponsorships, project webinars / meetups)
    • Respond to membership inquiries
    • Facilitate new member onboarding (via email)
    • Advising Executive Director / Board chair
  • The governing board will discuss offline whether additional initial responsibilities should be added.
• Discussed allocating and prioritizing areas of funding, and especially how to get community input.
  • Some ideas for getting community input included:
    • Having subprojects or groups from Jupyter present 5-minute talks to the governing board about their needs
    • Starting an online conversation, with some structure, about needs of subprojects
    • Designing and opening a call for proposals for funding, with a formal application process
  • This conversation included some side discussion of how much of the in-process governing board discussions should be private to the governing board vs public. No definite conclusion reached on this topic, but sentiment was expressed to have clear communication with the public about discussions (though perhaps after the fact) to build trust with the community.
• LF Member summit governing board meeting: some discussion around funding governing board members to attend the in-person meeting at the LF Member summit in March. The governing board had already approved some funding for attendance. We will gather information this week about how much we might need for the upcoming meeting and propose a budget request next time if we exceed the pre-existing allocation.
• General member governing board representative: a very short discussion introducing the topic of selecting a general member representative to the governing board. We will start an offline discussion to continue the conversation.

Feb 14th, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Afshin Darian (EC, QuantStack)
• Ben Bastian (Google)
• Jason Grout (EC, Databricks)
• Ana Ruvalcaba (EC, Cal Poly)
• Stephanie Stattel (Bloomberg)
• Rasik Pandey (Apple, bigsur0)
• Zach Sailer (Apple, Zsailer)
• Brian Granger (AWS)
• Rick Wagner (SDSC/UCSD)
• Chris Holdgraf (2i2c)
• Anna Filippova (Snowflake)

Notes¶

• Discussed how to support the Jupyter community, how do we improve the health and capacity of the Jupyter subprojects. Many ideas were discussed, including discussing with community members the needs, workshops and other activities that have worked well in the community, how to help in training and mentoring new contributors, and how corporations have engaged in the past to support community maintainers and activities in addition to direct funding.
• Shared and briefly reviewed Jupyter Community Building report. Executive recommendations from this report:
  • 1. Create a sustainable events program for subprojects
  • 2. Establish a mechanism for requesting resources
  • 3. Increase Cross Project Coordination
  • 4. Improve onboarding processes for contributors
• Discussed how the governing board can communicate with the broader community, including setting up a team compass and github repos/projects for tracking work and discussions, as well as publishing a blog post about our work.
• Discussed briefly finding a JupyterCon program chair
• Discussed logistics around the governing board meeting at the LF member summit in March.

Feb 7th, 2025¶

Attendees¶

• Ben Bastian (Google, github.com/sagelywizard)
• Jason Grout (EC, at Databricks, github.com/jasongrout)
• Afshin T. Darian (EC)
• Chris Holdgraf (EC, 2i2c, @choldgraf)
• Zach Sailer (Apple)
• Yaniv Schahar (Meta, github.com/ydawn)
• Stephanie Stattel (Bloomberg)
  • @dharmaquark
• Brian Granger (AWS, ellisonbg)
• From the LF: Scott Nicholas

Notes¶

• Introduce new EC members (Chris Holdgraf and Rick Wagner). We then had a short discussion about how EC elections work, how EC term limits work, and the 2025 election.
• Budget discussion: approved a $20/month Figma subscription charge to the Jupyter Foundation budget
• Discussed how to track governing board work asynchronously. We decided to create a public and private repos under the github.com/jupyter-governance org, along with an associated GitHub project tracking board, to track both public and private business of the Jupyter Foundation Governing Board. This mirrors the system the EC has been using recently.
• Briefly discussed the upcoming JupyterCon and asked if anyone would like to help with reviewing proposals at a future date, etc.
• Discussed asking for program management support for Jupyter Foundation and EC meetings (~10 meetings/month currently), including note taking, scheduling meetings, and putting together an agenda. Scott Nicholas from LF will get a quote for these services.
• Discussed an in-person governing board meeting at the LF Member Summit in March. Decided to pursue scheduling a meeting Monday, March 17.
• Very brief introduction to a discussion about the areas in which we could invest Jupyter Foundation funds that would benefit the community the most, and how to work with the community to decide these strategic areas. We decided to start an asynchronous discussion on this topic and continue this discussion next meeting.

Jan 31st, 2025¶

• Attendees: Afshin T. Darian (EC, at QuantStack), Ana Ruvalcaba (EC, at Cal Poly University), Ben Bastian (Google) , Brian Granger (EC, at AWS), Jason Grout (EC, at Databricks), Rasik Pandey (Apple), Stephanie Stattel (Bloomberg), Yaniv Schahar (Meta), Zach Sailer (EC, at Apple)
• Discussed how we want to run governing board meetings. For now, agenda and minutes follow the template of: attendees, decisions made, action items, public meeting minutes, community update from the EC, agenda and discussion
• Discussed having a governing board meeting at the LF Member Summit in March. Broad support was expressed, so we are moving forward on getting logistic details to approve.
• Discussed program management support that the Jupyter Foundation (and governing board) needs