Minutes peer review form

Assessed group’s name              cv203c2

Assessor group’s name              cv201a1

Date                                        3^rd of October 07

Rating Scale: 1 = Yes 2 = No

Read the minutes of your meeting written by your assessor group. Answer thefollowing questions. It is important that all members of the assessor group agreeon what is written on this form.

1. Is there a title? 1

2. Are the date, time and place written down? 1

3. Are the minutes structured according to the agenda? 1

4. Are all the points discussed mentioned? 1

5. Are the minutes easy to understand? 1

6. Are the minutes written in the correct tenses? 1

Read the minutes again and check them for spelling, grammar and punctuationas a group. Check them sentence for sentence making sure that each groupmember gives their opinion about each sentence. Mark any corrections on theminutes themselves and then answer these questions.

Name three things you like about the minutes.-          All is written in good English.-          The points of discussion are well described.-          The minutes are well structured. 

Name three things the writers should improve.-          All points were mentioned but about how to sell froobee could be written more.-          I don’t know more points off improvement.-           

Give the assessed group this completed form and the minutes with corrections.

The assessed group is responsible for posting this form on their weblog. 

Minutes of the meeting of CV203C2

 11^th  of October 075.20 AM

Amsterdam University of Professional Education  Project Meeting 

1.                  Welcome 

2.                  There were no absentees. 

3.                  Present:- Rick Slaathuis (chair)
                        – Rogier Scheinck
                        – Claudia Nieweg da Silva Marcos
                        – Kimberly Vegting. 

4.                  There were no announcements made.  

5.                  No mail received. 

6.                 

Timing
The meeting discussed different items. First item to discuss was timing. How did each member think about deadlines? Claudia and Rick thought that deadlines were necessary. Kimberly and Rogier thought that deadlines could be useful, but they should be flexible. We decided to create deadlines with a spare time of two days.

Meetings
Rick and Claudia said that meetings should be hold, unless if they’re good chaired. Otherwise there shouldn’t be enough communication. Rogier and Kimberly thought that meetings shouldn’t be hold officially each week. Rogier thought that communication could be done by e-mail. Reports
We all agreed that the reports must be written in perfect Dutch or perfect English. Sentences have to be short, but detailed. Minutes should always be taken.Hierarchy
Rogier and Kimberly thought that a leader should be good. Claudia and Rick said that working on a project is a teameffort, so everyone is equal.   7.                  Action plan:

To improve relationships in the project we made the following plans:

- We should create deadlines with a spare time of two days.
- Meetings should be hold, but they have to be flexible. Minutes should be taken each meeting.

- Reports should be written in perfect Dutch or English. Sentences have to be short, but detailed.
- We concluded that there’s no hierarchy in our group. We are all equal, because we’re all working on the same project. 

8.                  AOB:

Nothing came up for discussion.   

9.                  The chair thanked everybody present for their contributions to the discussions and closed the meeting at 10.45 a.m.
CV203C2