A few reflections on this subject:
1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers / presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes. These give a lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews and so on!)
2) Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea. Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.
3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning writing up minutes and then circulate a draft .... which then someone wants to amend ... .you get the picture. :)
Regards,
Chris