A ninety-minute meeting concluded Wednesday with unanimous agreement that a meeting was required.

“We aligned,” said facilitator Roland Petch. “That is the outcome. Alignment on the need for a further session.”

Eleven people attended. Two spoke. Three intended to speak and were overtaken by events. Six were present in a manner that satisfied the calendar.

The agenda contained four items. Item one consumed eighty-eight minutes. Items two through four were carried forward, a phrase the Centre for Circular Scheduling defines as “moved to a place where they will be carried forward again.”

“The meeting was not unproductive,” said Centre researcher Dr. Ottoline Frey. “It produced a meeting. That is production.”

At the fifty-minute mark, one attendee attempted to conclude proceedings by saying “so — action items?” The room agreed this was a good point and then discussed the point for eleven minutes.

The follow-up is scheduled for Tuesday. Its stated purpose is to define scope. Its agenda contains one item, which is the agenda.

A written summary was circulated afterwards. It has been read by nobody and replied to by four people.