Flying halfway across the world from Sydney to the United States sounds glamorous—unless you’re doing it for quarterly Metadata Steering Committee meetings. Yes, you heard that right: a committee. For metadata. While my friends imagined I was living the jet-setting life, I was sitting in a room with 12 people, debating whether “Project Name” should be a single or multi-select field. (Spoiler alert: single select won.)
The Great Metadata Debates
The committee was a mixed bag of personalities. Some were genuinely passionate about metadata, treating it like the holy grail of document management. Others were just there to make sure their department’s needs got prioritised—first cab off the rank when the migration happened.
And then there was me. I was in the early stages of my career, absolutely clueless about metadata or traditional document management practices. I had never even heard of information architecture. But I loved SharePoint, so I gave it everything I had. It’s just that “everything I had” often involved staring blankly at massive spreadsheets filled with metadata fields, wondering what I’d gotten myself into.
The stakes were high because we were planning a major upgrade from SharePoint 2007 to 2010 (or one of the many other upgrades—it’s all a blur now). Those meetings were supposed to bring clarity and direction. Instead, they were more like a corporate version of Groundhog Day: the same debates, the same arguments, and the same overwhelming spreadsheets, quarter after quarter.
Spreadsheet Chaos and Committee Chaos
The spreadsheets were legendary. Rows and rows of potential metadata fields, proposed values, and endless notes from the previous meetings. They were supposed to make things clearer, but mostly they just added to the confusion.
The debates were even more intense. One person would argue passionately for their metadata field to be included, while another would fight just as hard against it. Occasionally, someone would try to throw in a joke to lighten the mood, but trust me, there’s no saving a room full of people arguing about metadata.
As the “SharePoint person,” I was caught in the middle. I didn’t have the experience to navigate those discussions confidently, but I had passion. I believed in SharePoint, even if metadata felt like the most boring thing in the world at the time.
Lessons Learned in the Metadata Trenches
Looking back, those meetings taught me more than I realised at the time. Sure, the nine mandatory metadata fields we settled on were a terrible idea (who thought basing it all on the organisation’s structure was smart?), but the experience taught me that collaboration is messy, and compromise is inevitable.
The room wasn’t just full of spreadsheets and debates—it was full of people with competing priorities and different ways of working. Some wanted to get everything “just right,” while others just wanted the meeting to end so they could move on.
From Chaos to Passion
At the time, I had no idea how much those meetings would shape my career. I didn’t know what metadata was or why it mattered, but I showed up and figured it out. Over time, I took on more responsibility, eventually looking after SharePoint globally.
The irony? Today, metadata is one of my favorite parts of SharePoint. I wouldn’t recommend nine mandatory fields to anyone (seriously, don’t do it), but I now understand its power when planned properly. And while I laugh at how clueless I was back then, I’m proud of how far I’ve come.
Final Thoughts
If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that sometimes the biggest messes turn into the best stories. Those metadata meetings may have been chaotic, but they were also the start of my journey with SharePoint—a journey I’m still passionate about today.
