Summary

0. Properties - Meeting Date: Unknown - Meeting Type: 1x1 - Note Type: Summary - Attendees: Scott Warner, Shawn Remick

1. Meeting Summary

Shawn and I aligned that the current meeting cadence around the Adaptec IT work is no longer the best use of time. The core infrastructure work is now in execution mode - the network build is complete, the VLAN is up, firewall rules are in progress, and the team has a dedicated Teams channel with Shaper IT for day-to-day coordination. Given that progress, I agree we should likely collapse the broader meeting into a shorter 30-minute update and include only the key stakeholders, potentially including Pascal and a small set of others who need direct visibility.

The more immediate issue is employee access and ownership for Adaptec personnel who need systems access before they formally become TTS employees. Shawn is trying to coordinate with Christophe and Gage on this, especially for individuals who have signed commitments to stay and need access to tools like Salesforce. I shared that, based on the spreadsheet I had seen, I believe 11 employees have signed and 2 have declined, although that needs to be confirmed. We also discussed the lack of clarity around who owns the new employee process and agreed Shawn should email Lisa, copying Amity and me, to establish clear ownership and request the current list.

I also let Shawn know I now have read-only access in Paycor, which gives us a direct way to review employee data if needed. Longer term, I want IT involved in the design and cleanup of employee data structures so Paycor and Active Directory are aligned where appropriate. Shawn's view is that Adaptec's current processes are poorly structured and that we should not bend global standards to fit bad local practices. I agree global standards should hold, but I want us at the table during future system and data conversion decisions so the new structure is cleaner going forward.

2. Attendee List

• Scott Warner
• Shawn Remick

3. Action Items

• [Shawn Remick] Send an email to Lisa, copying Amity and me, asking who owns the new employee process and requesting the current list of Adaptec employees needing onboarding/access.
• [Scott Warner] Confirm the current employee commitment-to-stay numbers and identify which employees have signed versus declined.
• [Scott Warner] Make Paycor read-only access available as needed to support employee data review and related cleanup discussions.
• [Scott Warner] Ensure IT is included in future discussions around Paycor/Active Directory data structure alignment and system design decisions tied to data conversion.
• [Shawn Remick] Meet with Christophe on Tuesday, along with Gage, to better coordinate the Adaptec employee access approach.

4. Relevant Timelines

• Tuesday - Shawn has a meeting with Christophe to align on Adaptec employee access and coordination with Gage.
• Yesterday - Network build was completed and the VLAN was brought up.
• Current / in progress - Firewall rule work is underway.
• This summer - Data conversion planning will create an opportunity to address Paycor and Active Directory data structure alignment.
• Today - Kate is expected to make a number of requested changes for me in Paycor.

5. Additional Notes

• We are at the point where the weekly IT meeting may no longer be necessary in its current form. A shortened status update with only essential stakeholders would likely be more efficient.
• The operational handoff for the first phase of the IT work is effectively underway given the network, VLAN, and Teams channel setup.
• There is still ambiguity around who owns onboarding and access decisions for Adaptec employees who are not yet TTS employees.
• Lisa appears to be overloaded, so any request for ownership clarification should be structured in a way that creates visibility and avoids further confusion.
• I want to stay mindful of Paycor cleanup and downstream data structure decisions even if it is not the top operational priority right now.
• Shawn is concerned that some Adaptec work processes are fundamentally broken. That issue remains unresolved and should be treated as a future process improvement item rather than something to solve in the middle of the current integration work.