On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)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.
that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed
are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or
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
entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is
never completely right. (That's why we call them
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
minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have
a hard time.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org