[crazygringo]

I think you misunderstand.

Taking notes during meetings isn't to improve understanding, or to "read" afterwards.

They're a record of what was discussed and decided, with any important facts that came up. They're a reference for when you can't remember, two weeks later, if the decision was A and B but not C, or A and C but not B.

Or when someone else delivers the wrong thing because they claim that's what the meeting decided on, and you can go back and find the notes that say otherwise.

I probably only need to find something in meeting notes later once out of every twenty meetings. But those times wind up being so critically important, it's why you take notes in the first place.

[crassus_ed]

Right, so it's for accountability instead. Have you considered generating stories or tasks from the notes in that case?

Still I think it's better to discuss "action points" in that case and give a clear owner to those points. This always helps me to understand who's accountable and what actions actually need follow up.

[crazygringo]

The question is, what artifact records the action points, the owners, who is accountable? And all the necessary associated information?

Notes do. Ideally there is a meeting owner who produces official notes and emails them to everyone, but frequently that never happens. And when it does happen, sometimes they're wrong and you need to correct them.

Which is why you need your own meeting notes. Plus, like I said, there are facts that come up that you want to document as well, that aren't part of the action items, but have value.