On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the
meeting
by the designated note taker(s)?
Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve as minutes?
I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or reviewed to make sure that happens faster?
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...)
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.
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