[zzt123]

Until you have disagreement on the summary because it turns out not everyone came to the same understanding verbally - they erroneously thought they did. I’ve come to prefer having as much as possible of the common, written reference come before, not after the meeting - with time to consume and digest prior.

A meeting has value beyond just the words themselves, which is where writing meets its limit.

[jld89]

> Until you have disagreement on the summary because it turns out not everyone came to the same understanding verbally

This itself is a victory. This means the subject needs more discussion or is too complex for a 5 minute meeting.

I prefer to spend 2 hours to make a subject clear to all parties rather than developing under a false interpretation and having to fix the issue through a grueling 5 day back and forth.

I think writing before and after the meeting is both desirable. Before to specify the object of the meeting and to limit its scope, afterwards to conclude and archive the decisions made.

[OJFord]

Or that if you wrote it in the first place you wouldn't have agreed?

[jld89]

Sure, it really depends on the subject. I have a slight preference for the quick meeting (5 minutes) -with a followup email- rather than a long come and go in slack.