![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rewriting history
Feb. 26th, 2007 10:13 pmI write up minutes for a monthly meeting we have at work. This time I asked our guest speaker to double check the part about him, and he said it was fine. Then I asked my boss to double-check the whole thing as usual. He sent me an e-mail from someone else making a suggestion on how to clarify part of it. I took that suggestion.
Then my boss had me delete large portions of the minutes. The part where I talked about one of our current strategies, including the part that was clarified. The reasoning is that this strategy is still being ironed out, and is thus changing on a daily basis, so we don't want something written.
I said it's just meeting minutes, not a policy statement. I said it feels like I'm in Brave New World, rewriting history. (Although now that I think about it, that was probably 1984.) Maybe twenty people could find it. Only three probably will read it (I suspect; I like to be optimistic).
It's important enough to invite a speaker to talk about it, but not important enough to include in the meeting minutes.
This is another one of those politics things I don't get, isn't it?
So there's yet another reason to go to meetings that might be interesting rather than relying on minutes. Not only might the minutes writer suck or summarize too much or totally interpret it differently, they might be deliberately leaving out the most interesting parts as if they never happened.
Then my boss had me delete large portions of the minutes. The part where I talked about one of our current strategies, including the part that was clarified. The reasoning is that this strategy is still being ironed out, and is thus changing on a daily basis, so we don't want something written.
I said it's just meeting minutes, not a policy statement. I said it feels like I'm in Brave New World, rewriting history. (Although now that I think about it, that was probably 1984.) Maybe twenty people could find it. Only three probably will read it (I suspect; I like to be optimistic).
It's important enough to invite a speaker to talk about it, but not important enough to include in the meeting minutes.
This is another one of those politics things I don't get, isn't it?
So there's yet another reason to go to meetings that might be interesting rather than relying on minutes. Not only might the minutes writer suck or summarize too much or totally interpret it differently, they might be deliberately leaving out the most interesting parts as if they never happened.