On this page
groups
Meeting Minutes
Decisions and actions, captured in a form that survives the disagreement three months later.
Last updated
Minutes are not a transcript. Their value is in two things a recording cannot give you: what was decided, and what someone committed to do by when. Everything else is optional context.
When to use it
- Any meeting where a decision is made, money is committed, or scope changes.
- Governance meetings — steering, change advisory board, design review — where an audit trail is expected.
- Not for standups or informal syncs; a shared task board is cheaper.
What it must answer
- Who was there, and who was invited but absent (absence matters when a decision binds them).
- What was decided, by whom, and on what basis.
- Which actions were accepted, by which named person, by which date.
- What was explicitly deferred, so it does not silently disappear.
Template
<Meeting name> — YYYY-MM-DD
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Chair | |
| Minutes by | |
| Attendees | |
| Apologies | |
| Distribution |
Decisions
| # | Decision | Rationale | Decided by | Reversible? |
|---|
Actions
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|
Discussion notes
Brief, per agenda item. Record positions where people disagreed — not who
“lost”, but what the competing arguments were.
Deferred
| Item | Deferred until | Why |
|---|
Next meeting
Date, and what must be ready beforehand.
# <Meeting name> — YYYY-MM-DD
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Chair | |
| Minutes by | |
| Attendees | |
| Apologies | |
| Distribution | |
## Decisions
| # | Decision | Rationale | Decided by | Reversible? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Actions
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Discussion notes
Brief, per agenda item. Record positions where people disagreed — not who
"lost", but what the competing arguments were.
## Deferred
| Item | Deferred until | Why |
|---|---|---|
## Next meeting
Date, and what must be ready beforehand.
Worked example
Payment Migration Steering — 2026-08-19
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Chair | R. Okafor (Sponsor) |
| Minutes by | S. Lindqvist |
| Attendees | R. Okafor, M. Duarte, A. Berg, S. Lindqvist, J. Marek |
| Apologies | P. Nowak (data) — represented by M. Duarte |
| Distribution | Attendees + programme mailbox |
Decisions
| # | Decision | Rationale | Decided by | Reversible? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-14 | Ramp starts at 5%, not the originally planned 10% | Auth-rate signal is statistically usable at 5% within 48h, and halves revenue exposure if the rate drops | R. Okafor | Yes — step size can be raised at the next gate |
| D-15 | Automatic rollback threshold set at 95.5% rolling auth rate over 30 minutes | 0.9pp below current baseline; below this the revenue loss exceeds the cost of a rollback | R. Okafor, on Finance’s numbers | Yes, by steering only |
| D-16 | Dual-running extended to 8 weeks from 4 | Finance needs two full month-end cycles to trust the new reconciliation feed | M. Duarte | No — provider contract dates now assume it |
Actions
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-31 | Confirm P. Nowak’s allocation through September in writing | M. Duarte | 2026-08-28 | Open |
| A-32 | Implement 95.5% rollback trigger and prove it in a game day | J. Marek | 2026-09-11 | Open |
| A-33 | Re-forecast provider costs with 8-week dual-run | S. Lindqvist | 2026-09-02 | Open |
Discussion notes
Ramp size. Engineering argued for 10% to reach statistical significance in
24h; Finance argued for 5% to cap exposure. Both accepted that 5% reaches
significance in 48h, which does not move M3. Decision D-14 taken on that basis.
PCI scope. Security has not completed the scope review (dependency D-01,
now 4 days late). A. Berg confirmed no new scope is expected but would not
sign before review completion. No decision taken.
Deferred
| Item | Deferred until | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Bank transfer migration | FY2027 planning | Out of scope in the current charter; needs its own business case |
| Merchant fee repricing | After M4 | Depends on realised provider costs |
Next meeting
2026-09-16. Required beforehand: PCI scope sign-off (D-01), rollback game day
result (A-32), revised cost forecast (A-33).
# Payment Migration Steering — 2026-08-19
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Chair | R. Okafor (Sponsor) |
| Minutes by | S. Lindqvist |
| Attendees | R. Okafor, M. Duarte, A. Berg, S. Lindqvist, J. Marek |
| Apologies | P. Nowak (data) — represented by M. Duarte |
| Distribution | Attendees + programme mailbox |
## Decisions
| # | Decision | Rationale | Decided by | Reversible? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-14 | Ramp starts at 5%, not the originally planned 10% | Auth-rate signal is statistically usable at 5% within 48h, and halves revenue exposure if the rate drops | R. Okafor | Yes — step size can be raised at the next gate |
| D-15 | Automatic rollback threshold set at 95.5% rolling auth rate over 30 minutes | 0.9pp below current baseline; below this the revenue loss exceeds the cost of a rollback | R. Okafor, on Finance's numbers | Yes, by steering only |
| D-16 | Dual-running extended to 8 weeks from 4 | Finance needs two full month-end cycles to trust the new reconciliation feed | M. Duarte | No — provider contract dates now assume it |
## Actions
| # | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-31 | Confirm P. Nowak's allocation through September in writing | M. Duarte | 2026-08-28 | Open |
| A-32 | Implement 95.5% rollback trigger and prove it in a game day | J. Marek | 2026-09-11 | Open |
| A-33 | Re-forecast provider costs with 8-week dual-run | S. Lindqvist | 2026-09-02 | Open |
## Discussion notes
**Ramp size.** Engineering argued for 10% to reach statistical significance in
24h; Finance argued for 5% to cap exposure. Both accepted that 5% reaches
significance in 48h, which does not move M3. Decision D-14 taken on that basis.
**PCI scope.** Security has not completed the scope review (dependency D-01,
now 4 days late). A. Berg confirmed no new scope is expected but would not
sign before review completion. No decision taken.
## Deferred
| Item | Deferred until | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Bank transfer migration | FY2027 planning | Out of scope in the current charter; needs its own business case |
| Merchant fee repricing | After M4 | Depends on realised provider costs |
## Next meeting
2026-09-16. Required beforehand: PCI scope sign-off (D-01), rollback game day
result (A-32), revised cost forecast (A-33).
Common mistakes
- Actions without a named person. “The team will investigate” is an action nobody has.
- Recording only the outcome of a contested discussion. Six months later, someone will re-open it. Two lines on the competing arguments prevent re-litigating from zero.
- No “reversible?” marker on decisions. Reversible decisions can be made quickly by one person; irreversible ones deserve the meeting’s full attention. Marking them changes how the next one is handled.
- Publishing days later. Minutes lose most of their value after 48 hours; people have already acted on their own recollection.
- Minuting everything. If a meeting produces no decision and no action, the minutes should say exactly that — in one line.
Related templates
- Status Report — carries open decisions forward between meetings.
- Architecture Decision Record — for technical decisions that need a durable home outside minutes.
- Change Request — the CAB equivalent of these minutes.
- Project Management — the other four project-management templates.
Linked from
- Architecture Decision Record — One decision, its context, the options rejected, and what it costs — in under a page.
- Change Request — The approval record for a production change: what, when, risk, backout, and who said yes.
- Status Report — A weekly one-pager that reports the delta, the decisions needed, and the truth about the date.
Last updated 23 Aug 2026, 17:44 -0500.