Maybe this is just my interpretation but OP effectively argued "too many ineffective meetings, we should have less unnecessary meetings and a clearer, independent direction".

The commenter above argued that the problem was slightly different, it's not too many meetings for communication but too many that are not achieving effective communication. A meeting in itself does not create communication (of information and exchange of opinions etc.) and the commenter wanted to increase the number of meaningful meetings instead of/in addition to just cutting down meetings by numbers. The criticism of not enough time spent on communication is in the same vein, both agree on the issue of "too many unnecessary meetings".

▲

colechristensen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Y'all are saying the same thing over and over with slightly different words proposing that the different way of saying it has a meaningful impact on the message. It doesn't.

>"too many ineffective meetings, we should have less unnecessary meetings and a clearer, independent direction".

>it's not too many meetings for communication but too many that are not achieving effective communication

^^ there's no meaningful distinction between those two, discussions that devolve into such things suck all potential value out of a thread.

▲

thaumasiotes 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The distinction is explicit in the statements you quoted. One is advocating for lessening the number of meetings. One is saying that won't help, and instead advocating for increasing the quality of meetings.

	▲	cassianoleal 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Actually, it isn't. The first is: * Acknowledging that too many meetings are ineffective * Suggesting reducing the number of inneffective meetings * Saying there needs to be clearer, independent direction The second is: * Stating that there are not too many meetings in general (the first says nothing about this) * Acknowledging that too many meetings are ineffective (same as bullet 1 of the first sentence) * Not suggesting how to address either problem I agree with GP. There is no meaningful distinction between the 2, but the first suggests 2 ways to solve the problem of ineffective meetings whereas the second simply acknowledges the existing of problems.