If you were asked to proof read, what level of input woukd you give?

[Janesput]

Part of my role is to proof read minutes a colleague does. They're very long and taking them is a miserable job!

She does a decent job, there are sometimes some typos or punctuation errors to correct but for the length of them, not too bad.

But, to make them the way I'd do them really polished, I'd change quite a lot of the language and formatting, which would make this favour a lengthy job, and which also could put her nose out of joint.

I have no line management responsibility for her, aaIve been asked to do this as a favour to our boss, who used to do it.

WWYD? Is OK good enough?

Should have proof read my post!

Do you not have co pilot or similar?

I can be a bit like you! But I understand that can be fairly irritating as a management style so I adopt a policy of ‘is it how I would do it?’ Maybe not… but is it sufficient for the purpose of the thing, if yes then leave (mostly) well alone.

You've been asked to proof read, not edit, so it's grammar, punctuation stuff only rather than 'polishing'.

Could you suggest a format to her e.g. double-spaced, specific font. Maybe even set up a template document for her to follow? That way a lot of the work would be done by her.

Then all you'd need to do is check the spellings and get rid of any unnecessary words.

I'd just ask the person what level of proof reading they wanted, SPaG or content.

Actually, and I should have said this to begin with, I've been asked to "QA" them.

The boss who's asked me is very picky when she does it, which annoys both me and the colleague in question.

I’d correct obvious typos and grammatical errors but I’d try to resist any rewriting etc as it could become quite time consuming.

Yes, but it doesn't seem to come up to the standard required by our boss.

Depends on the context of what the meeting was for. Internal team meetings (more casual) or formal committee?
Generally speaking I think correct any spelling and grammatical errors, and then limit any language and style changes to only those which make the context or intention clearer.
If there are large chunks you'd change to be more formal or something then I'd feed back so she can have another go rather than doing it myself.

I think if there are a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes, I'd just pick out the ones that detract from the meaning. Or ask the author if they mind if you just create the typos as you go along. Most people will say that's fine.

I'd mostly be focussed on whether decisions and actions were recorded correctly and clear (i.e. not buried in a wall of text).

Do you have a company standard for how minutes should be produced? You could feedback if that's not being followed. If you don't have one, you could maybe suggest one?

If this has been delegated to you then I'd take your boss's lead.
If the boss likes it a certain way (even if that seems a bit overkill) but the colleague is still needing their work to be QAd then that suggests they need more training and guidance.

Proof reading is SPAG only.

Anything else is editing.

If your boss has asked you to take over a job she was doing, I would either do it to the same standards that the boss did or pitch a quicker way of handling the task, being clear that it may not catch 100% of the errors. (It seems to me a lot of it could be automated, with you just doing a final pass for readability). If you just do a less thorough job without saying anything, your boss is likely to think you're not handling the task properly. But if she does insist that you do it the thorough way, make sure she knows how time consuming it is for you and that you know where the priority falls versus your other work.

What’s that got to do with anything? Proofreading is a skill in itself. We don’t have to farm everything out to AI.

It depends. Who will read the minutes? What is their function? Do they just need to be good enough, or do they need to be better? Has anyone complained?

(I’m a proofreader.)

They’re minutes as opposed to reports so I don’t think I’d do too much but you being asked to check them at all seems like bad time management, surely the person writing the minutes shouldn’t need to be ‘edited’- it’s the equivalent to a meeting about a meeting!!!

Not quite. Proofreading also includes checking consistency, that house style has been followed, layout, clarity, sense…

I will preface this by saying I am autistic and I really dislike waffle, 'management-speak' and poor grammar.

Until I retired I worked in a higher administrative role for the NHS. I used to be asked to read through documents, information, web pages etc. frequently as I was known to be picky and an advocate for clear, unambiguous language. However - when working with people I had not worked with before I always checked with them exactly what it was they wanted me to do, and the level of 'pickiness' that would be acceptable. I know that some people found it uncomfortable but, as far as I am concerned, something like patient information (for example) needs to contain sufficient, relevant, up-to-date information, written in language that the ordinary person could be expected to understand.

So - if I were you I would ask your boss exactly what they want and, if possible, get that requirement in writing. Then, if there are any complaints, you have that to refer to (and yes, I do know that is poor grammar and that one should never use a preposition to end a sentence, but it is used so much in normal conversation it now sounds wrong to write it the correct way).

This.

I would offer to edit it.

These are meeting minutes, I would think they’d be using a template.

They might be but it doesn't mean they need to be long-winded.