Timing the start of something is not a simple process. Punishing people for being late disproportionately impacts poor and disabled people. Not all of us can drive a car or even have a car to drive. We might have to wait on other people, or use public transportation, and the more steps we add to the process the more likely something is to go wrong. Punishing people for being late is systematic oppression towards these groups. This punishment can include starting without people, especially if that itself is framed as a punishment.
“Let the late ones be late and miss out (they can read the minutes), and reward the prompt ones by not wasting their time”
From the rusty's rules of order, something the IWW uses to organize. They are ableist.
On the other hand, waiting too long to start can impact people with limited time or energy. Not everyone can stay awake an extra hour just to wait for something to start.
This means that there is not one singular solution for how to start things (although obviously don’t do punishment). In small groups the best solution is to talk things over with everyone and get an idea for what everyone wants to happen, what can go wrong, and plans to mitigate any potential issues. If public transportation is running late, maybe someone with a car can go pick you up.
For large groups, most things do not need a strict starting time. If it is a large group and it requires strict attendance then you brought hierarchy into it long ago and ableism and such was always the conclusion you were going to get anyways.
I feel the best course of action would be to start immediately so nobody's time is wasted, and have a dedicated person to catch late attendees up to what's happening? By dedicating the role you could maybe make it so time isnt taken from the meeting to explain things and attendees don't have to feel like they're slowing others down
what if the dedicated catch up person is late?
Choose someone who is pretty much never late. If they are, the system won't work, but no system has a 100% success rate, take the occasional L and move on
Good question. I would honestly have a few volunteer back ups and if everything else fails, either cancel the meeting or consult the people who are usually late (beforehand, as a plan) about whether they would prefer if meetings start without them if there's no catch up person, or if they'd prefer the meetings be delayed
Also the degree to which the person who is usually late is important in making decisions should probably be considered too, I'd imagine. If someone's just there to see their org's internal process than they'd probably care far less if they can't see or understand the whole thing, than if they're an integral decision maker. Though even then it does feel kind of rude to just ignore their needs, especially because engaging in org meetings is something that should be encouraged regardless.
Actually writing this all out, I think treating the "catch up person" role as necessary to start a meeting would be the best way to do it, if a significant portion of the people showing up won't have full context than that's a huge issue altogether IMO. So just reschedule (if you can and it isn't super urgent)
Idk anything about actually organizing meetings, I'm just some rando. But this feels like how I would want it handled if I was late for things a lot of the time due to work or obligations