Recognise a confirmed decision
An enthusiastic suggestion or the absence of a reply is not enough to establish agreement. Identify who has authority and restate the outcome with the people concerned. Separate an approved decision, a provisional trial and an open question. Explain what changes for the team and when it takes effect. Do not turn an informal exchange into a commitment on behalf of people who have not confirmed it.
Create a short note outside the thread
The chat enables discussion; a stable note makes the outcome findable. Summarise the decision, necessary context, owner and next step in a place the team knows how to consult. Keep a context link if recipients are authorised to read it. Avoid copying names, private statements or disagreements that are unnecessary for carrying out the action.
Make the action checkable
Describe an observable task rather than a wish: expected document, recipient and deadline. Where several people contribute, distinguish the person doing the work from the person confirming its completion. Add conditions that can suspend the decision, such as securing a venue. The note should let an absent colleague understand what remains to be done without retracing a long conversation.
Revise without losing useful history
When a decision changes, identify the version that applies and point to it from the older note where that note remains available. Do not maintain two conflicting instructions in parallel. Plan a review of open decisions and closure of completed tasks. Retain only history useful to the project; its duration and access should be decided according to the organisation’s actual needs and obligations.
A fictional case to apply the process
Fictional example: volunteers discuss the room for a workshop. The authorised person confirms the venue, the team records who will update the page and waits for the booking before announcing it publicly. The summary distinguishes the internal decision from the confirmation still awaited.
Template to adapt
Copy this outline into your working document without passwords or unnecessary personal data.
Decision: Status: approved / provisional / open Scope and effective date: Necessary context: Authorised approver: Action owner: Expected outcome and deadline: Outstanding condition: Authorised context link: Review and closure:
Your check before use
0 / 4
Useful questions
Is a chat export enough?
It retains exchanges but does not necessarily identify the valid decision. Add an action-focused summary and check access permissions.
Should every speaker be named?
Only when that serves the decision and the use is appropriate. The action owner is often more useful than a participant list.
Related steps
Sources and scope
Sources consulted on 10 October 2026 for the points specified below. The method, template and example are editorial proposals; they are not service tests.
- W3C WAI — Writing for Web Accessibility — Structured headings, descriptive links and clear instructions. The proposed process is an editorial method.