Ha, yeh you're right LG.
That said, I think the issue is a 'macro' one, not a micro-level AFT-specific one.
Purely from my perspective, my view is that the current Board have engaged with the fans far more often than any of its predecessors. In chief, this engagement has been well received; particularly so when when undertaken on an informal basis.
Formal engagement has proved more problematic. The PASB was something instigated - & wanted - by the Board. It was never going to be exciting ~ it was there primarily for the formal, governancy-stuff of a company wanting to work closely with its stakeholders; in this case us, the fans.
The PASB's near-complete lack of success was down to a number of factors; but I have no doubt that the primary reason for its collapse was that the conscious attempts to undermine it by some led to mistrust from the Club, which led to...... well, you get the story. A shame really, as there was an excellent nucleus on the PASB that, whilst not always in agreement, had the skill set to make it work. As for the small number of others, some big egos trapped inside small minds I'm afraid.
Again from my perspective ~ & with absolutely no insider knowledge ~ it seems to me that under its new leadership, the AFT are taking a more mature, measured approach to its formal relationship with the Club. But there are challenges associated with this more measured approach, & it's these same challenges that the PASB faced.
The handling ~ & disclosure ~ of sensitive information, 'turn-around' times, the amount of time required of the volunteers, etc, etc.
As for the 'turn-around' times of minutes in particular, this was a particular bête noir for the PASB & appears to be the same for the AFT. Of course, standard protocol for meetings at the top of companies & organisations usually sees minutes being signed off at the following meeting prior to wider circulation. Yet here, pressure from a vocal ~ & largely uninvolved & inexpert ~ minority seeks a different, quicker approach. It did so with the PASB & is now doing so with the AFT.
If acceded to, this pressure can in turn generate conflict between the two parties who are actually trying to achieve something, which of course in turn results in little, or nothing, being achieved. I think that this needs to be resisted.
For me, people tend to be either drains or radiators. Perhaps it's time for the drains ~ or as LG calls them, the snipers ~ to put up or shut up.
If you don't want to to try & achieve something then fine, but why take pot shots at others who are trying to actively support Plymouth Argyle?
I'm content with the AFT's more measured, mature approach. As for the minutes, if I were they I'd agree the circulation of minutes after agreement at the following meeting (unless specific urgency dictated otherwise) & try & ignore the resultant smell from the drains.
Always work to the objective, not the methodology.
Proper isn't always popular.
