Re: a question about meeting minutes
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowdscomcast.net)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
I think we all start meetings with agenda items that are time-delimited, and 
substantive in general terms.  But after that … I’ll give an example …

A while back, Cornerstone experienced a flurry of AirBnB activity that was new 
for us, and caught many of us by surprise.  So on relatively short notice, 
AirBnB was on our plenary agenda.  For an hour's discussion.  And we went round 
the circle, a couple of times.  A variety of specific sub-issues, and 
information and attitudes about those sub-issues, eventually surfaced:  Use of 
common facilities by transients; issue of keys to strangers; zoning law and the 
master deed; insurance; change in community character; and so on.  However, 
during the course of an hour, each sub-issue rose and fell in varying degrees 
of focus and detail; the AirBnB agenda was not pre-divided into differentiated 
sub-topics (and perhaps, should not have been).  A he-said-she-said transcript 
of the rounds would not have made clear what people were concerned about.  An 
interpretation might do a better job, especially in terms of prepping 
non-attendees for the next meeting.

Overall, my experience is that a lot can and does happen in plenary.  It just 
doesn’t happen linearly.

Thanks,
Philip Dowds
Cornerstone Village Cohousing
Cambridge, MA

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Muriel Kranowski <murielk [at] vt.edu> wrote:
> 
> Our plenary meetings are in fact well organized and well facilitated. If
> there are 3 agenda items, it's clear which one we're discussing right now
> and whether we're dealing with clarifying questions or concerns or are in
> general discussion on that item. My intent is to capture in some detail the
> tenor of the discussion, and I don't find it too difficult to do this.


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.