diff --git a/SIG-Embedded/2025/05-27-Meeting-notes.md b/SIG-Embedded/2025/05-27-Meeting-notes.md
index e03ab019..160a244f 100644
--- a/SIG-Embedded/2025/05-27-Meeting-notes.md
+++ b/SIG-Embedded/2025/05-27-Meeting-notes.md
@@ -1,13 +1,15 @@
 # May 27 SIG-Embedded Meeting
+
 ## Europe & Asia Pacific Timzone meeting
-** 10am Central European Time, 4pm in China, 3am US East Coast **
+
+**10am Central European Time, 4pm in China, 3am US East Coast**
 
 **See the [instructions](../README.md) for details on how to attend**
 
 ## Agenda
 
 1. Opening, welcome and roll call
-1. Announce that the meeting will be recorded and hit record as agreed upon in inaugural meeting. 
+1. Announce that the meeting will be recorded and hit record as agreed upon in inaugural meeting.
 1. Announcements
     1. _Submit a PR to add your announcement here_
 1. Other agenda items
@@ -19,8 +21,36 @@
 
 ## Notes
 
-* TODO
+### Recap last meeting
+
+Ron Evans voiced concern about the proposal discussed in last meeting supporting [lime1 besides wasi-libc](./05-13-Meeting-notes.md#agenda): There is a lack of wasi-libc maintainers already, would spread thinner with more libs to support
+
+### Discussion LTS
+
+General discussion to move the WASI LTS forward.
+
+* What should be the targeted duration of a LTS
+  * Ron 7y
+  * TT 10y
+  * Dom 8y plus reasonable migratin strategy
+  * Ashihs - 8 to 10y w/o migration path, otherwise less
+  * Max TT and Doms proposal
+
+* What platforms should be considered?
+  * Will the decision be bound to chips, architectures or capabilities of target platforms?
+  * What shouöd be the scope: Flexibility / Testability? Having a wide scope of targets will make testing and verifying pretty tedious.
+  * In general a tiered model might apply. Having a narrow scope tier one of platforms which will be supported first by the LTS and extended tier 2 and 3 which will get (partial) support over time
+
+* Things we need to put in place:
+  * Which runtimes to support? WAMR most probably, maybe wasm2c
+    * Reuse the idea of tiers maybe?
+  * We need consistent quality, supported by CI/CD
+    * How to determine Non functional requirements (Performance, Resource demand, ...)? Proposal: Evaluate and document actual benchmarks first and compare to that and derive NFRs from that about:
+      * Compilation time
+      * binary size / footprint (from which)
+      * execution time performance
+      * define a set of parameters
 
 ## Action Items
 
-* [ ] TODO
+* [ ] Conclude on the above mentioned items and move to [document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FYaR_pBfO4QlHLVqxw597JCqyp6AhZm7vGd9OsD6Ocs/edit?tab=t.0)