The most important feature of a
wiki meeting is that, as a
wiki best practice there is no separate page called
agenda and another page called
minutes. In a wiki meeting,
the agenda becomes the minutes after the meeting is concluded. Thus:
- the number of pages needed to run a meeting is one.
- avoids all effort in moving things from one location/document to another.
- meetings are treated as objects that always have the same URI through time.
The best way to format a wiki meeting agenda is to copy the text and markup from the
previous meeting's agenda. Business unresolved at the last meeting can continue to evolve (or not). Maintaining a
wiki meeting template can assist committees or groups new to wiki meetings. The best templates will have ready links to contacts, rules, committees, project management hubs within the organization, already in place. These should be specialized to create the first
meeting agenda.
[+] managing a meeting using the IPA system
Using the
IPA system as a convention for wiki meetings is a
wiki best practice.
- Agenda items or whereas statements are equivalent to an issue statments.
- Motions are equivalent to positions.
- amendments are similarly treated as sub positions.
- any transcript debate usually takes the form of argument.
Except for the terms being used, there is no real procedural difference between a page in the
IPA form and a wiki meeting. An open ended issue page can be described as a wiki meeting with no established end date, but is assumed to be relevant to current events.
[+] Getting serious: Citing evidence, sources and authorities.
The IPA system can be deepened when dealing with serious or controversial matters using the more rigourous
TIPAESA form. When motivated to do so, participants should be encouraged to cite
evidence/source/authority. This way, a wiki meeting can achieve a level or rigor which meets or exceeds most court proceedings. At the appointed time of the "live meeting" (if there is one) the participants act as the jury who form decisions on the positions given the arguments, evidence, sources, and authorities presented.
[+] Only arguments can be presented late in the process.
While it is clear that
surprise motions are generally undemocratic and unwise, it also holds that no new evidence should be presented immediately before deciding since the evidence cannot be examined by all interested parties. If new evidence is presented, the decision should be deferred until its
source and credibility can be examined.
New arguments, on the other hand, can be introduced at any time, and no argument should be made
off the record. It is highly desirable to record all arguments. See
consensus decision making for more detail.''
[+] in-camera items
Items in-camera are by no means omitted from the minutes. In-camera items, while they may exclude observers, are recorded in the wiki to the limit that the overriding obligation
privacy or other protocol allows. It is not acceptable democratic practice to use in camera sessions without citing what constitutes the necessity for the in camera session.
[+] recording minutes
Aside from an elaborated decision structure which will probably be added to other pages, a meeting has other outputs: all
action items, and any
point of privilege or
point of order raised should be recorded. "On the fly" typed transcripts of conversations are not recommended unless they can be done professionally and consistently. It is far better to make an audio recording.
[+] naming the meeting
Related pages:
reflexive intranet Living Agenda decision making Rules of Order of the Green Party of Canada GROOP proxy vote abuse of process accountability off the record consensus democracy hearsay groupthink Transparent Municipalities webcast Recent Changes
