diff --git a/meetings/2020/2020-03-11.md b/meetings/2020/2020-03-11.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8eb831
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2020/2020-03-11.md
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2020-03-11
+CentOS Board - meeting minutes - YYYY-MM-DD
+Attendees
+Actions
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Public minutes
+Attendees
+KB
+Jim Perrin
+Karsten
+MikeM
+Ralph
+Tru
+
+Guests
+Chris Wright
+Deborah Bryant
+Rich Bowen
+Brian Exelbierd
+Actions
+ACTION: (Carry all actions from notes below up to this section)
+ACTION: Karsten to convene a special Board call in 2 weeks; public agenda included
+ACTION: Board needs to say from it’s perspective what the Red Hat Liaison role is
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Chris Wright discussion
+CentOS Stream as area Red Hat is making investments
+Staffing appropriately
+RHEL 9 true manifestation of the vision of stream being the leading edge and defining direction for RHEL.
+more than can be in RHEL 8 cycle
+how does transition work?
+RHEL 8 work was intention
+getting to all the packages, how?
+Stream transition
+- when a rhel major release transition happens, what happens?
+what is response to 'overnight cliff disruption'?
+this is a critical dialog and with feedback from userbase
+keysigning etc.
+Basic timeline
+Want to be at end of this year working in a model where Stream is in existence; concepts around Stream-focused SIGs to augment/layer capabilities; actual interested partners and users == clear flagship users; have all the community build infra set, ready to go; think about the end of this calendar year, this is all coalescing.
+2021 CentOS Stream becomes a real focal point for the CentOS community; where things are happening, interesting, etc.
+Have some conversations around RH Summit 2021
+Then proof of concept around taking contributos
+Then from details of what it means to make and take a contribution
+Late Spring, early summer 2021 work out contribution model
+Late in 2021, a whole collection and momentum around the development of an ecosystem focused around Stream
+Really becomes a central part of the overall Project
+This is the RH mindset
+Tru: What does this mean for runway between versions for developers?
+Want to move to Stream being the distro
+Stream being the world Red Hat is participating in CentOS, and the commercial distribution RH produces
+MikeM: What is the transition like?
+Chris: what does the overlap look like?
+Moving from a EL8 to EL9 based stream is not chaos, that would kill the premise if it went wrong
+Jim - 9 stream would be prominent, but 8 stream users would still continued to be able to pull for a transition period
+Take an action to do the updae, yes
+KB - have to keep it usable, not sacrifice the userbase.
+What is the evolution model going to look like, what does usable look like?
+Many people installing right now are expecting the long time between updates
+If we’re changing the model, we need to work that through.
+Chris - in a different world than in Fedora/rawhide
+Not fundamentally invasive, but yes between major releases
+When to kill the clone?
+Chris: Starting at RHEL 9, there is no derivative
+What does it mean for C8?
+RH wants to see that one end, too
+RH has put some thought into this, today’s world & tomorrow’s world?
+Mapping from today to tomorrow for all groups
+We have the main use cases figured out
+Labs, partners are looking good so far
+Reasonable understanding of
+Mechanisms for making RHEL more accessible for certain types of use cases it’s currently unusable for
+E.g. openstack or FDIO community, they target an RPM built artifact in their CI system, they currently cannot use RHEL due to subscription agreement. That could be addressed.
+Change how we interact at RHEL level, rather than CentOS level.
+Can’t only take care of some small %
+Collaborate on how we segment on user community
+KB: how does Fedora relationship change in what that things remain reasonable?
+E.g. hyperscalers such as Facebook use CentOS, how does that work with the Fedora ecosystem?
+For co-collaborators, the story is great
+Fedora is evolve the distro, CentOS is stabilize for product?
+Still same marketecture diagram
+Fedora is still upstream, leading edge OS level changes location
+Still base for subsequent Stream and major RHEL release comes from
+Stream about moving the stable platform forward
+Chris’ condense:
+RH focus going forward is on Stream
+From RHEL 9 forward that’s the way whole process will work
+For 8, RH expectation is to meaningfully move the userbase to a Stream focused world and not keep the longtail of the rebuild going.
+Johnny: I don’t have a problem with that conceptually, but the community is going to have their own feelings
+That work is going to be picked up e.g. Oracle, and they start bleeding off all the biggest userbases, how does that benefit IBM or Red Hat? What to do about negative press? And diluting the userbase?
+Chris: this is our biggest concern; we don’t want to introduce this to torpedo CentOS. 
+Johnny: don’t be surprised when it happens
+Sensitive to this as an outcome, want to do whatever RH can to maintain ideally all the userbase.
+Not going to be 100%, but can we make it an acceptable loss.
+Johnny: ideally we wouldn’t cut off the EL 8 rebuild
+Chris: RH ideal is to do that within 8, cutoff then
+Balancing disturbing with moving that userbase forward or to a landing place.
+Mike: no subterfuge intention, however, we have not been talking publicly about this other part of it. We’ve only been talking about the awesomeness of Stream. In response, we’ve seen a lot of concern that this is a prelude to killing the rebuild. So we are holding back for PR reasons. But it wasn’t clear to me that it was impossible to talk Red Hat out of killing the clone.
+Tru1:54 PM
+as an end-user : prove that c8-stream works fine enough, and I will move to c9-stream, if you cut off c8-stream before eol rhel8, that will kill centos, imho.
+Rich Bowen1:56 PM
+Early, clear communication to the community, is so important, so that they can plan. When can we start preparing the community for what's coming?
+KB - if we can prove that Stream is useful, then we can move forward without mincing words and without causing a panic.
+Users care about the experience, not the version number
+Can we carry that along
+Tru2:02 PM
+thanks for being honest for terminating c8 ni the medium/short term
+Tru2:05 PM
+hope for RH that c8-stream will take off, but I am not so optimistic, but I am am not RH, so I probably have all the rlevant info for that urgent need.
+What Chris needs
+Document role of Liaison, so RH knows how that role can be used?
+What are things we Liaise on?
+Can Board take an attempt at writing down Liaison role?
+Jim:
+What is RH’s interpretation of the role? Then compare.
+
+
+Update on logo redesign
+Website redesign
+Ask Tuomas to help guide the other designer through the approval process, cf. logo?
+What else?
+Update on Pat & Thomas
+Who wants to sponsor each of them? 2 volunteers needed
+Thomas all lined up
+Pat conversation with Bonnie, Garry hopefully coming next week
+Goal is to have them closed and announced before end of March, on the April call
+Update on IRC channel
+Bylaws memory?
+Rolling (last from 2020-02-12):
+(Private) Trademark Guidelines review:
+What works & what does not.
+What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.
+(Private) Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft
+On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit.
+Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?
+Stepping-up our meeting norms
+(Private) New Board members
+Transparency initiatives
+Public minutes
+On YYYY-MM-DD the CentOS Board of Directors met …
+
+Narrative summary of what was discussed.
+
+In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:
+
+Item 1
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+…
+Item N
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+
+Present at the meeting:
+
+
+(Guest)
+
+
+(Secretary)
+
+
+(Chair)
+
+
+
diff --git a/meetings/2020/2020-03-25.md b/meetings/2020/2020-03-25.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..040d632
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2020/2020-03-25.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+CentOS Board - meeting agenda - 2020-03-25
+CentOS Board - meeting agenda - 2020-03-25
+Attendees
+Guests
+Actions
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Public minutes
+Attendees
+Mike McLean
+Karanbir Singh
+Ralph Angenendt
+Karsten Wade
+Johnny Hughes
+Jim Perrin
+Guests
+N/A
+Actions
+ACTION: Karsten converting today’s discussion into a draft criteria doc.
+ACTION: Directors to pair as sponsors with incoming Directors.
+
+
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Bold-faced items should be addressed in this meeting.
+EOL for 8
+Spec we need; what are objectives and how do we solve them?
+Begin to list out criteria for CentOS Stream to replace CentOS Linux 8 where it matters to us.
+We want these groups taken care of, but need to know what “taken care of” means: Market segments worksheet
+JH: CPE is working to get things going, but there hasn’t been a commit to git that wasn’t manually rolled-in.
+JH: To be usable, has to be updated, continually updated, and that the system can actually be used.
+JP: This informs the baseline
+JH: publicly committed bugs, infrastructure, etc. where people who are not just RH customers, members of the community can get in, ask for, show stuff, interact publicly on -devel list
+JH: This must be a promise.
+JH: What about the maintenance phase? 
+JP: Maintenance phase is almost exclusively embargoed content; committed to developing product in Stream, they may wish at a certain point that CentOS stop doing the builds and binaries, to get the userbases interested in shifting to the next thing.
+JH: Need to state the timeline up front for how long a versioned Stream is going to be developed into.
+JP: What Cormier wants is that we don’t focus on the Stream versions from the Project communication/marketing.
+KB: what happens when there is a rollover of the main Stream? What happens in the trenches (rather than on the marketing page)?
+JP: transition period of 12-18 months where there is a X, X+1 versions out there.
+KB: Red Hat must be invested in keeping the lights on during that transition time.
+ JP: Is sure development is going to happen, but RH Eng/BU will want CentOS to stop building the binaries. All the work will be in the public, they want our help in pushing the latest content.
+JH: What release point will the binaries stop?
+JP: This is for the entire life of feature development phase (Phase 1) binaries will be needed and desired. When Phase 1 stops RH wants us to move people to the next Phase 1-based Stream. Typically five years.
+JH: Is that 5 years + 18 months so criteria of End of Phase 1 plus 18 months or plus 12 months or … What do we need so that we don’t lose to Oracle?
+JP: A little before that, current intent is to have RHEL 9 beta be CentOS Stream and no RHEL beta.
+KB: We need at least 36 months of stable plus 18 months beyond that, that we should be able to work with. There will only be two Stream versions at a time..
+JP: 8 is going to be a weird reduced lifecycle, we have to do fuzzy math with 8 stream. 9 is our best model to define from.
+MM: We need adoption before we can yank out the rug and alienate users, which is not what anyone wants.
+KB: %'sage adoption is a good metric to add as well, its not easy to measure so we need to have something that can be qualified
+Needs a finite, measurable thing such as hitrate on mirrors; logs from mirrors.centos.org. Representative of trends.
+KB: “If 25% of traffic on mirrorlist has to shift”
+
+
+KB: Chris wants to have an announcement by a time period, but what actually happens when is different.
+KB: Can we get to the qualification of what is a good enough CentOS distribution? If 8 Stream ends up not quite being the adoption vehicle, then we can call it a POC and have a solid plan for 9.
+JH: Phase 1+$time_period is necessary to transition to keep from losing people off the cliff.
+RA: Years vs. Phase 1 vs. commitment for RHEL 3 years (so RHEL + transition phase).
+JP: 3 years announced already, committed, going to push layers to move over.
+RA: what are the actual years for the Phases?
+Phase 1 - 5 years feature development
+Maintenance Support 1
+Phase 2 - 2 years maintenance bugfix secfix
+Phase 3 - 2 years gathering dust
+MM: One viable criteria is proof of community participation in Stream--RH Engineers, yes, but the rest of the community. We can measure this, this shows adoption/caring.
+RA: Measure work into bug tracker, different points of contact across the different bug trackers.
+JH: We have broad agreement that the Download button changes to follow the new thing.
+JH: Let’s not be shorter than a Debian devel cycle.
+
+
+Update on Pat & Thomas
+Who wants to sponsor each of them? 2 volunteers needed
+Johnny for Pat, Mike for Thomas
+Thomas all lined up
+Pat conversation with Bonnie, Garry hopefully coming next week
+Goal is to have them closed and announced before end of March, on the April call
+CentOS Stream items
+Liaison role - draft?
+Next meeting
+Update on logo redesign
+Website redesign
+Ask Tuomas to help guide the other designer through the approval process, cf. logo?
+What else?
+Update on IRC channel -- FIXED
+Bylaws memory?
+Rolling (last from 2020-02-11):
+(Private) Trademark Guidelines review:
+What works & what does not.
+What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.
+(Private) Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft
+On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit.
+Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?
+Stepping-up our meeting norms
+(Private) New Board members
+Transparency initiatives
+Public minutes
+On YYYY-MM-DD the CentOS Board of Directors met …
+
+Narrative summary of what was discussed.
+
+In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:
+
+Item 1
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+…
+Item N
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+
+Present at the meeting:
+
+
+(Guest)
+
+
+(Secretary)
+
+
+(Chair)
+
+
diff --git a/meetings/2020/2020-05-11.md b/meetings/2020/2020-05-11.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b672bb4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2020/2020-05-11.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+      CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2020-05-11
+CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2020-05-11
+Attendees
+Actions
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Public minutes
+Attendees
+Ralph
+Pat
+Tru
+Thomas
+Karsten
+Mike
+Jim
+KB
+
+Actions
+ACTION: All Read through the Public notes
+(Carry all actions from notes below up to this section)
+Decisions, resolutions, and agreements
+Agenda + Minutes
+Time commitment from Directors for Board business - 1 hour/week, ticket system
+Git.centos.org vs. pagure.io
+If use GitHub, talk with Freshman Gady for sec review
+Using our own tool is straightforward, without a deeper analysis
+Pagure.io would be hosted for us, moving way eventually
+Purpose
+Way for us to engage with the community
+Way for us to work through things
+Decision: git.centos.org, revisit in a few months
+RH membership/seats
+No doc yet
+ACTION: We recognize that there is an issue here we need to work through, and we do not identify a high risk at this time while we work through it. KB writing a statement here for the public notes.
+ACTION: Bring Rich Bowen to Board calls, how? Do it by the next meeting.
+Vision and strategy == “open goals update” for centos.org/about
+KB’s points about vision from here -- what do we want the Project to look like in 3 to 5 years?
+Heavily invested in success above the platform - RDO, etc. SIGs is where the action was, distro was nice and boring. C6 -> C8 early model
+Stream as the new vision has to make a usable thing.
+It may not be the only thing we do
+We need to reach out to get participation from various groups that aren’t on -devel.
+Open goals refresh (doc)
+ACTION: Need timeline commitment from Board -- be ready to close and announce next meeting
+What do we need to announce?
+The completed doc above;
+Announce email that includes the non-Board co-authors & why they are there;
+The clear, milestone-based open decision process we are going to follow to bring this thing to a conclusion.
+Who are the known stakeholders
+Invitation to step up, define as stakeholder, and do the work/bring voice for that view; good faith requirement
+List who are the deciders - Board only, or plus Red Hat in some way
+CentOS Stream success criteria doc
+This is our lever in protecting the community we care about.
+What deadline can we commit to?
+Liaison role draft
+Our progress, the status
+Bex doing RH side to present to the Board
+Role’s we’ve historically had in the Liaison bucket may be in the actual purview of an RH staffer e.g. Bex, Director, community manager e.g. Rich, or a more-clarified Liaison.
+Redesign discussions updated
+Logo redesign
+Website redesign -- ongoing process, Thomas to tell Alain
+Bylaws
+Need to get on this one after the open goals review
+Or sooner
+Lots of RH stakeholder work to do here
+Governance
+Adding Secretary role to existing governance
+Any other changes to existing?
+How does this roll into Bylaws?
+Rolling (last from 2020-02-11):
+Keep eye on git.centos.org usage for Board
+(Private) Trademark Guidelines review:
+What works & what does not.
+What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.
+(Private) Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft
+On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit.
+Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?
+Stepping-up our meeting norms
+Transparency initiatives
+Public minutes
+On YYYY-MM-DD the CentOS Board of Directors met …
+
+Narrative summary of what was discussed.
+
+In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:
+
+Item 1
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+…
+Item N
+AGREED or
+ACTION
+
+Present at the meeting:
+
+
+(Guest)
+
+
+(Secretary)
+
+
+(Chair)
+
+