A recurrent shortcoming of meetings is the need to make decisions in an uninformed way, forcing us to defer to the person with the best command of the subject, which doesn't facilitate participation at all! The culture of expertise, so prevalent in our capitalist system, is the opposite of that of participation.
The problem is often not so much a lack of methods, but rather an overloaded agenda involving numerous decisions, the reasons for which are known only to a few. Should we then seek, as in management, to optimize these meeting times, or should we arbitrate on the agenda? Is it desirable to systematically rush through all points at a meeting? What needs to be rethought in the way the group operates to break out of this spiral?
Short-circuiting stages in order to reach a decision more quickly is the whole point - and the flaw - of the culture of expertise. The key is to remember that a meeting is part of a process that enables participants to express their views on the issues on the agenda, then to reflect on them, make proposals and reach a decision. From the point of view of an expert on the subject, it's time-consuming...