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.