* We discussed the role of group meetings. It was mentioned that everyone should be in a research group. There were some suggestions to change the format of group meetings: they could be more open to people 'outside' the group, for example by puslishing the agenda in advance. They could also be more informal, a place to discuss ongoing problems and get input.
* We talked about how to introduce new PhD students to the people and the research at the department. Some suggestions: making an organisation chart, putting more information about what everyone does online, matching with more experienced PhD students for the first paper, name bingo.
* There seemed to be little excitement about adding another recurring event like Mirco Mondays. Practicing pitches could be done in group meetings instead.
* Most groups talked about the different ways of supervision everyone gets. There was a suggestion to make these differences more clear, for example by having older PhD students present about their experiences.
* Postdocs are good for supervision! In general, maybe more attention should go to the role of co-supervisors.
* There used to be an introductory seminar/meeting with Pontus to explain all practical things with new PhD students, which was good.
* Another external review may not be necessary - let's start by implementing the previous one.
# Midway review / preparatory seminar
* We refer to the PhD representatives
# Question candlelight holder
## Can we work less for (mental) health reasons?
It should always be possible in some way, but how easy it is depends on how you are funded.
## How will we manage all the teaching when there are less PhD students?
* It is pointed out that we can't be forced to teach too much.
* It isn't allowed to voluntarily teach more in exchange for a PhD extension.
* Some suggested solutions: hire a full-time teacher, get backup from Solid Mechanics, teach less courses (or not every year)
## What do we think about research sprints like Pontus' group did recently?