On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part
> the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the
> that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered
> that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed
> are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or misrepresented.
> 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
> level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else
> entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is
> never completely right. (That's why we call them drafts...)
This makes me think "release early, release often" -- quick publishing of
draft notes so they can be reviewed and questions asked for clarification.
And/or lean further on recording to ensure that incorrect or missing notes
can be corrected by double checking what was actually said.
> 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
> communications needs to deal with.
This is a legitimate concern deserving more thought at all levels of our
> I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their
> minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org