diff --git a/meetings/2020_11_24/README.md b/meetings/2020_11_24/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a62b99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2020_11_24/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# ROS 2 Security Working Group Meeting Minutes
+24 Nov 2020
+
+[Meeting Recording](https://youtu.be/7ZJidRtTqXI) | [Meeting Announcement](https://discourse.ros.org/t/security-wg-meeting/17519)
+
+
+## Agenda
+
+- Administrivia: future meeting minutes
+- G-turtle goals
+  - MoveIt2 security use case
+  - ROS 2 without a file system, [rcl #545](https://github.com/ros2/rcl/issues/545) and [discourse post](https://discourse.ros.org/t/ros-2-without-a-file-system/16942)
+  - [Galactic Roadmap](https://index.ros.org/doc/ros2/Roadmap/#id2) 
+  - sros2 quality status: any comments?
+- ROS2 secure launch and access control
+- [RMF](https://osrf.github.io/ros2multirobotbook) as a use case, see the [demo](https://github.com/osrf/rmf_demos)
+- Revoking keys
+
+## Attendees
+[Iker Luengo Gil](https://github.com/IkerLuengo),
+[Jacob Hassold](https://github.com/jhdcs),
+[Jaime Martin Losa](https://github.com/JaimeMartin),
+[Jeremie Deray](https://github.com/artivis),
+[Kyle Fazzari](https://github.com/kyrofa),
+[Marco Gutierrez](https://github.com/marcoag),
+[Mikael Arguedas](https://github.com/mikaelarguedas),
+[Ruffin White](https://github.com/ruffsl),
+[Sid Faber](https://github.com/sidfaber)
+
+
+## Administrivia
+
+Following a brief discussion, it was decided to move new meeting minutes to the [`ros-security/community` Github reposityr](https://github.com/ros-security/community). Existing meeting minutes in the [ROS wiki](http://wiki.ros.org/ROS2/WorkingGroups/Security) will not be ported.
+
+The [vulnerability remediation procedure PR](https://github.com/ros-security/community/pull/8) is still open for comments.
+
+
+## G-Turtle goals
+
+Five open items could become part of our G-Turtle deliverables:
+
+### Reference implementation with MoveIt
+
+Goal would be to demonstrate "Hey, look, here's an example of a real system that's secured." Although the config may be able to stand on its own, it would be more useful as an example.
+This example will also be useful for us to find issues with the security implementation on a complex system to test: CPU / network utilization, what to sign, what to encrypt, overall impact to the system.
+This also becomes a proving ground for NoDL.
+
+Use this implementation to configure security levels per topic, following the ones supported by DDS-Security: NONE, SIGN, ENCRYPT. Currently SROS2 is all or nothing, either all topics are encrypted or no security feature is used at all. See [Tracking ticket #130, "Provide some granularity for individual topic protection"](https://github.com/ros2/sros2/issues/130).
+
+Simulation may be challenging; a simulated implementation may not quite match the real world implementation. However, we should be able to spec the project in stages. Start simple and build upon the demo.
+
+### Enable DDS security without a file system
+
+The scope of this issue is much wider than just security. Success depends upon buy-in from both the micro-ROS community and from Open Robotics.
+
+The WG agrees to continue to move the discussion forward to flesh out a design, but not to perform any work on the code at this time.
+
+### [sros2 quality](https://github.com/ros2/sros2/issues/217)
+
+Even though a quality upgrade is stalled on dependent package quality levels, we should continue working on improving sros2 quality. The most important work is to improve documentation.
+
+Currently sros2 users aren't using online resources, and they need more / better documentation. The recommended path forward is to add a full section on security to the ROS 2 tutorials. This should build on the examples of the existing tutorials, and demonstrate how to re-do them with security enabled.
+
+A discussion also ensued on the current status of [answers.ros.org](https://answers.ros.org/questions/).
+
+### Permissions file size
+
+Mikael has been working on uglifying the permissions files. Work on this continues.
+
+### Integration test failures
+
+Mikael described the current state of [failures in test_security](https://github.com/ros2/system_tests/issues/446). The WG agreed that these tests should be fixed, although no specific action items were identified.
+
+### Conclusion
+The WG will focus on the following primary items for G-turtle:
+
+- A reference implementation of security
+- Improving sros2 quality through documentation updates
+
+The WG will also continue working on the following items:
+
+- Design input for running ROS without a file system
+- Reducing permission file size / complexity
+- Fixing test failures
+
+## Open Discussion
+ROS launch status: the initial launch is working but does not include access control. The work is in progress, but stalled pending discussions on [launch_ros PR 180](https://github.com/ros2/launch_ros/pull/180). Some comments are suggesting a plugin solution, which would change future PRs.
+
+Marco suggested [the Robotics Middleware Framework (RMF)](https://github.com/osrf/rmf_demos) as a reference implementation for ROS security. This should be ready to run with ROS 2; they have already done some work with security as well.
+
+Marco also asked about revoking keys: there's a need to handle that within RMF should an individual robot in a fleet be physically compromised. Jaime provided [information on CRLs from eProsima](https://fast-dds.docs.eprosima.com/en/latest/fastdds/security/auth_plugin/auth_plugin.html#generating-the-certificate-revocation-list-crl).
+
+## References
+More information about items that were discussed:
+- [Vulnerability remediation procedure PR](https://github.com/ros-security/community/pull/8)
+- [sros2 quality](https://github.com/ros2/sros2/issues/217)
+- [Failures in test_security](https://github.com/ros2/system_tests/issues/446)
+- [Secure launch_ros PR 180](https://github.com/ros2/launch_ros/pull/180)
+- [The Robotics Middleware Framework (RMF)](https://github.com/osrf/rmf_demos)
+- [RMF: Programming multiple robots with ROS 2](https://osrf.github.io/ros2multirobotbook/)
+- [FastDDS and CRLs](https://fast-dds.docs.eprosima.com/en/latest/fastdds/security/auth_plugin/auth_plugin.html#generating-the-certificate-revocation-list-crl)
+
+## Open action items
+
+- 2020/09/22: [Test failures on test_security](https://github.com/ros2/system_tests/issues/446)
+- 2020/06/09 (sid): Draft guidance for vendors on how to create a vulnerability disclosure policy.
+
+Closing the following items as this work is actively in progress:
+
+- 2020/09/22: Kyle/Mikael to add an issue for uglifying permissions files
+- 2020/07/28: Mikael and Ruffin to try and shave size off the perm files and wildcard to optimize, then push upstream. Follow up with a discussion on matrix. See https://github.com/ros-swg/turtlebot3_demo/pull/34#issuecomment-665439493.
+- 2020/05/12: Review [Move security related filesystem and env utilities outside rcl · Issue #545 · ros2/rcl](https://github.com/ros2/rcl/issues/545) and comment