On 7/23/02, Randy Presuhn wrote: > >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. > 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.