Subject: Re: how to take minutes

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:30:11 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:25:21 -0400
> From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: how to take minutes
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
...
> > Some of these meeting notes that capture (some of) the words
> > but miss the point of the discussion.
> 
> That last point is a useful one, but when I can't be at a meeting I
> strongly prefer blow-by-blow transcripts, even babbling, over just
> results.  I want Meeting Notes with enough detail that I can pick out
> the motivations and other nuances.  "Minutes", for the Proceedings,
> should not exclude them.  
...

While these "blow by blow" accounts give the appearance of
great detail, I think they are seldom sufficiently accurate or
complete enough to support using them to discern "motivations
and other nuances."  YMMV.

A few years ago the minute taker for one WG session literally
tape-recorded the meeting and transcribed it verbatim.
Valiant, but I'm not sure it was actually helpful.  Even with
the transcript and having been there in person, I'm still
blissfully ignorant of the motivations behind some of the
positions taken.

I'd be happy with accurate lists of topics/issues discussed,
agreements reached among those present, and action items
assigned.  More isn't necessarily better.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:56:22 -0500

On 7/23/02, Randy Presuhn wrote:

>great detail, I think they are seldom sufficiently
>accurate or complete enough to support using them to
>discern "motivations and other nuances."  YMMV.
>
>A few years ago the minute taker for one WG session
>literally tape-recorded the meeting and transcribed it
>verbatim. Valiant, but I'm not sure it was actually
>helpful.  Even with the transcript and having been there
>in person, I'm still blissfully ignorant of the
>motivations behind some of the positions taken.
>
>I'd be happy with accurate lists of topics/issues
>discussed, agreements reached among those present, and
>action items assigned.  More isn't necessarily better.
>

I also tend to dislike "blow by blow" accounts, especially
if they become virtual transcripts of the session.

Recording someone's spontaneous wording in minutes that will
be saved, and be searchable, for years to come strikes me as
inappropriate. It will certainly chill spontaneous
discussion.

On the flip side, presenting only the conclusions is
inadequate. The minutes should reflect all positions
discussed. It is important that there be a record of
alternatives that were considered, not just the option
selected.