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
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>