diff --git a/weekly/2016-05-16.md b/weekly/2016-05-16.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d2652eb71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/weekly/2016-05-16.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# May 16th, 2016
+
+## What we were even doing here
+
+This was our inaugural weekly.
+
+We’re sort of looking at this meeting as a retrospective on the previous week. We’re very aiming very roughly at ~10min, but since we’ve never done this before, and since Rick is starting new this week, we’ll see how it goes.
+
+We went in first name alphabetical order, and shared three things from the last week:
+
+1. What went well.
+2. What went less well.
+3. What we learned.
+
+
+## Retrospective
+
+@joshvera:
+
+- Diff summaries! We now have a functional way of mapping diffs to their summaries. Tricky path to get to it, but pretty simple completed.
+- Also worked on alignment stuff. Tricky stuff, possibly undecidable stuff.
+- We’ve been learning about recursion schemes, and different ways to tear down and build up finite & infinite data structures in versatile & structured ways.
+
+
+@rewinfrey (on his first week with us! :tada:):
+
+- Last week was wrapping up some work on a tenant scoping problem. Handed that off to @bryanaknight.
+- Ran through `semantic-diff` setup, and `stack test` is all green.
+- Also spending some time configuring Atom for Haskell &c.
+- Excited to be here! :tada: (**Ed:** And we’re excited to have you! :heart:)
+
+@robrix:
+
+- Diff summaries went well.
+- Working on alignment also went well, thanks to :pear:ing w/ @joshvera.
+- I was reminded that at its best, :pear:ing is a “greater than the sum of its parts” sort of thing.
+- Forgot to note that syncing up w/ @jbarnette on the meta-discussion around alignment was incredibly valuable. I spent a lot of time Writing Things Down last week, and I’m very glad I did.
+
+The above took us 8min. Nice!
+
+
+## Metaretrospective
+
+Since this was our inaugural weekly chat, we also did a retrospective on the retrospective:
+
+- @joshvera observed that even if he’s not working closely with @rewinfrey & @robrix, he’ll have some idea of what we were working on, but less of an idea of what we learned; it’s both more interesting & harder to discover.
+- @rewinfrey pointed out that this can help us discover unknown unknowns; “I learned x” gives others a chance to say “have you heard of y, which supersedes x?”
+- @rewinfrey further noted that this is sort of a “what would be worth learning?” question, which sets us up nicely for this week. It’s a good chance to confirm that goals for the week are useful!
+- @robrix was very glad to get the above feedback; this metaretrospective was super valuable.
+- @robrix later realized he forgot to set down what the goals of this meeting are (in his opinion), which would be worth talking about.