Early in my career,1 I learned a particular approach to taking meeting notes. I’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback about this over the years; here’s my attempt to explain the approach and why it’s effective.
I call this “semantic note-taking”2 based on the two main actions:
- Try to record a shared understanding, focusing on meaning rather than text; and
- Leverage the process of taking notes to create that shared understanding.
This document is my own work: all opinions, interpretations, hypotheses are my own. But I can’t take credit for the approach: I learned this implicitly by mirroring what my coworkers were doing. Please blame me for any bad advice; any positive outcomes, credit to the giants on whose shoulders I have stood.
Wherefore meeting notes?
There’s different reasons to have a meeting, some of which are (as the meme goes) really reasons to send e-mails. There’s also meeting types where semantic note-taking isn’t an appropriate approach.3
The meetings where semantic note-taking shines involve many-to-many, back-and-forth communication. A weekly team roundtable, where we update each other on recent incidents and project progress.4 A working session between two teams, to establish background and decide on an approach. A horizontal summit, discussing how different groups have handled similar problems.
The goal of this kind of meeting is to build a shared understanding. But the process matters too: What did we conclude? What information did we use? What values did we apply? Notes-as-an-artifact record the answer to these questions; and if done right, the process of taking notes can help answer them.
Recording meaning
I start semantic note-taking for a meeting by saying:
I volunteer to take meeting notes. But I’m not a transcriptionist, so I’m going to write down what I hear, not what you say. I’m sharing the meeting notes right now- if I’m misrepresenting you, please say something to make sure we’re all on the same page!
This distinction – “what I hear, not what you say” – is the semantic part. I’ve found this makes me more engaged in meetings where I’m taking notes: I’m focused on active listening, going from ears to brain to fingers, rather than “just” transcribing.5
But human language is an imperfect conveyor of thoughts6. This is where the note-taking process matters: we want to set up an environment where, in the moment, we detect and discuss misunderstandings. Without judgment – recognizing up-front that misunderstandings are possible, that the record reflects only one understanding, and that our shared goal is to reflect that inside and outside everyone’s heads.
In addition to the above, I say:
I’m probably going to have comments, and I have a hard time typing and speaking. Can someone be ready to trade off note-taking with me?
and wait for (or solicit) a volunteer.
“Note-taker” and “participant” are not discrete roles; I assume everyone is at the meeting to contribute to the discussion. Explicitly preparing to trade-off makes sure the note-taker’s contributions don’t get missed, and helps onboard more people into the semantic note-taking pool.
More mechanics
The above are – I think – the important bits. If you want more (less important) details, here’s some other things I think contribute to effective meeting notes.
Procedural
- Use a shared document, e.g. Google docs.
- Attach it to the meeting invite, e.g. with a link.
- Share with edit access for all attendees.
- Use the same document for a repeated meeting or series.
- At the start of the meeting, identify two notetakers: solicit / volunteer to get them.
Establish expectations.
- We need at least two people ready to jump in and take notes so that everyone can contribute: when Murali has something to say, Charles is ready to write it down, and vice versa.7
- Everyone is here to participate. Primary/backup. One person writing, unless they start talking for fall behind.
- Form a habit –> mutual trust.
- Keep a line “empty” at the end
- One notetaker presents the notes (e.g. via screen-share).
- If someone is presenting slides, it’s probably not a many-to-many meeting; is semantic note-taking the right choice?
- Participants don’t need to have a device open unless they’re taking notes.
- Share the meeting notes afterwards.
- …including with non-attendees of interest, e.g. a team list or a
myteam+notes@sublist. - Explicitly ask for corrections, again. My typical caveat:
These notes reflect what I understood, not what you said, and I probably got some things wrong. Please correct the record, and reach out if you think anything important was missed.
- …including with non-attendees of interest, e.g. a team list or a
Structural
- Add a header to mark & date each meeting session.
- Below that, add a top-level bullet for each top-level agenda item
- Below that, bullets for replies, sub-points, and discussions on that topic.8
- Include a speaker identifier9 for each point10
The resulting notes look something like this:
Future agenda items:
- bombadil@: Results of prime mover research (work in progress)
2178-04-08: Temporal cabal weekly
- rvw@: Issue with prognosticator
- Prognosticator prone to high latency; sometimes only produces results after the event
- Possible solutions? -> brownphd@ has some patents on this, I think?
- brownphd@: Combine with temporal distortion field?
- rvw@: Tried that in Delta tests; didn’t work well
- fifteen@: We have more resouces in Alpha; more details? Maybe can work around?
- jnwy@: localized anomalies, see logs http://logs.voy.fleet/33.44.5; warp disruption (link? AI: jnwy@), cutoff from mycelial network, …(and a few other issues fifteen@ didn’t get written down; jnwy@ to link)
- brownphd@: also high power draw issue; exceeds 1.21GW, may need protostar-scale source
- cassilium@: Scale isn’t atmospherically stable, it’ll blow up
- brownphd@: Don’t think so, will link numbers (AI: brownphd@)
2178-04-01: Temporal cabal weekly
- cassilium@: Morlock attack rates increased
- “I’m trying very hard to not say I told you so” (cassilium@: please put that in quotes in the meeting notes)
Closing
If you’ve been my coworker, and you’ve thanked me for my notes: You’re welcome! Now it’s your turn!
If you have comments or suggestions – or if you want me to do this (and more) at your company – drop me a line.
Thanks to Meg, Reed, John, and Murali for reviewing various drafts of this.
-
I started as a Site Reliability Engineer, i.e. a software-engineer/sysadmin hybrid, and moved into software engineering after a few years. This advice may not apply if you’re in another field– I hear lawyers don’t always want things written down. ↩︎
-
Or “SREmantic note-taking”, reflecting how I learned it: this kind of note-taking was the norm among the Google SRE teams I worked in and with. Years later I was in a meeting with another former SRE who I hadn’t worked with…and we jumped into the same habits, without coordinating. But it’s not just for SREs. ↩︎
-
I don’t do semantic note-taking for 1:1s, either because I want them to be “off the record” or because the procedure is too invasive / formal. In meetings that are mostly unidirectional meetings, like daily standups or presentations, I don’t think semantic note-taking results in useful outcomes or artifacts. And some discussions warrant more privacy than this note-taking style provides; I recently took part in a meeting held under the Chatham House rule, with good reason. There’s no universal rule! ↩︎
-
The “production meeting” was, and is, an important part of the SRE team schedule. With everyone involved in regular on-call shifts, we need a forum for discussing updates / changes / events, not just hearing about them. ↩︎
-
In college, I heard advice to take notes on paper instead of on a computer– with the claim that doing so forces you to listen more carefully, and decide which things are important. Saying this at the start of the meeting reminds me to actively listen even when typing. ↩︎
-
Unlike the tines, whose vocalizations are their thoughts! ↩︎
-
For a few years Murali Suriar and I were counterparts on an intercontinental SRE team, and usually volunteered as note-takers at our weekly meetings; I learned this process in large part by trying to match him. On which point: practice makes perfect holds here too! ↩︎
-
The small-scale structure, beyond each top-level bullet, isn’t very specific. Sometimes I put a reply in a nested bullet, sometimes in a bullet at the same level. I’m not sure how I make this decision! Whatever seems to best capture the train of thought. ↩︎
-
This was one of John Truscott Reese’s “hobbyhorses” (sense 3): “Use unambiguous identifiers for people in writing.” That was usually the local-part, i.e. before-the-@ of an email address. When Google Docs added “people cards,” I switched to using those, which helped me break a bad habit of calling people by their username. ↩︎
-
Again: this meeting format is not for all situations – there are good reasons to have meetings without attributing particular points. I try to record speakers so I can remember who to credit for suggestions; but in other cases other practices are better. ↩︎