How to prepare a monthly community decision report

Prepare your monthly report as a decision document: what changed, what remains blocked, and which approvals you need. Do not turn it into a dashboard copy or a narrative of every post. Its value comes from connecting evidence with owners and next steps. The structure below is an editorial and operational recommendation, not a proven benchmark or a promise of better community outcomes.

1. Set scope, audience, and cutoff

State the reporting period, community, author, and information cutoff. Separate the leadership version from any member-facing summary. An incident may require internal review without justifying distribution of names or screenshots. Classify each statement as a verified fact, interpretation, or proposal. When information is missing, explain what is unknown and who can verify it. An empty field should not silently become a negative conclusion about a member or the team.

2. Summarize decisions, not just activity

Organize the document into completed decisions, unresolved issues, and requested approvals. For each proposal, include the reason, alternatives, and expected operational effort without inventing future outcomes. If you use an available CSV export from PowerUpSkool, check its columns, scope, and plan limits before citing it. An exported file is not a complete community backup or full accounting documentation. Retain only what this report actually needs to support its stated purpose.

3. Review this checklist before sharing

• Every conclusion has identifiable evidence available to its authorized audience.
• Every pending decision includes an owner and requested decision date.
• Examples are anonymized when identification is unnecessary.
• Incomplete information and hypotheses are clearly labeled.
• The public version excludes individual cases and confidential details.

4. End with a specific request

Hypothetical example: “Three lessons still have links awaiting review. We request that Marta reserve two hours on Thursday to check them; afterwards, we will decide which materials need replacement.” This is a verifiable request, not an impact prediction. Avoid percentages without context, success attributed to a tool without evidence, and attachments nobody can access. Start the next meeting by reviewing requested decisions rather than reading the entire document aloud again.