The rule to limit meeting sizes is interesting. There's nothing more irritating than sitting in a meeting you have no reason to be in just because everyone els

The rule to limit meeting sizes is interesting. There's nothing more irritating than sitting in a meeting you have no reason to be in just because everyone else is there, especially when you're eager to get something done! Conversely, nothing derails a meeting quite like someone who has something off-topic but important on his or her mind. Limiting the size of meetings should, in addition to giving people more time to work, make the meetings themselves more focused and efficient. However, there's a price to be paid. Sometimes the best ideas come from the person who has the least reason to attend the meeting. Also, it's often advantageous for everyone to have a big-picture view of what's going on. I wonder if a different form of meeting structure might be a good middle ground. Perhaps meetings should have "principal" members and an "audience". Call a meeting with a sharp focus and as few principals as possible. The principals are expected to speak the most and form the consensus. The audience still has the ability so speak, but not to bring up new topics, and don't necessarily have to agree with the outcome for the meeting to conclude. If a meeting is meant to cover different topics, the principals could change for each topic. I suspect this format of meeting would be difficult to get people to buy into. However, depending on a company's needs, rigidly limiting meeting sizes might not always be worth the cost.