When it comes to meetings, I am told that among my management peers, I have the reputation of having a structure fetish. I insist on an agenda and notes for every meeting (except confidential one-on-ones), and on cross-references to existing documentation, applicable issues tracked in an issue tracker, or wiki pages.
@xahteiwi
Can be both. If it helps to shorten meetings (make them more efficient) and maybe even reduces the number of meetings I am finde with it (as long as I am not the one to do the work).
I can see value in (occasionally) more free-flow meetings too.
Oh, and I very much like having a wiki/etherpad/codimd/… open on the projector and writing it during the meeting instead of a protocol.
It is a tragedy that each and every #gathering of people goes by the umbrella term of "#meeting" now.
There is a huge number of formats we can pick the most suitable from, depending on the intended #outcome. They're requiring different amounts of #ceremony.
I'd rather widen my #facilitation skills than bash the "meeting" straw man.
@PragmTeams Ahum. If I may say so, insinuating that I am bashing a straw man — I'm not bashing anything — is a straw man in itself. That's the opposite of pragmatism, in my book.
@xahteiwi I've recently started to push much harder for useful agenda items ahead of time and minutes after.
It's not always perfect, and cross-referencing can be a mess (because reasons), but I simply insist that if it's not written down, it's not a decision made.
(And I will allow for minutes to be in the issue tracker for the topics discussed, doesn't have to be meeting minutes, as long as it be documented in writing.)
@larsmb Yes, part of why I call them "meeting notes" and not "minutes" is that some people are put off by the perceived excessive-formality overtones of the latter term.
Add comment