On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
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...)
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
board
communications needs to deal with.
This is a legitimate concern deserving more thought at all levels of our movement.
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.
Risker/Anne
-- brion
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe