On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the
> meeting
> > > by the designated note taker(s)?
> >
> >
> > Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
> > as minutes?
> I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of
> changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual
> publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or
> reviewed to make sure that happens faster?
I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part of
the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the minutes
that relate to my presentation/participation/comments.   I've discovered
that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed or
are misinterpreted or key facts  may be misreported or misrepresented. Even
the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There
have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the
minute-taker.  It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or the
level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else
entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is almost
never completely right.  (That's why we call them drafts...)

For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large
part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board
communications needs to deal with.

I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting
minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to