Interim Order on Meeting Ending Hover
A counterfactual account of what would have happened if the first person had simply left at the stated end time.
What Would Have Happened If Someone Had Left First
The meeting was scheduled to end at 14:30. At 14:30, it ended. Nobody left.
This is not a counterfactual. This is what actually happened.
The counterfactual is this: what would have happened at 14:30 if someone had stood up, said nothing in particular, and walked out.
The first scenario requires no change to the meeting's substance. The work was complete. The stated end time was 14:30. Leaving at 14:30 is not early. It is correct.
In this scenario, meeting ending hover solves nothing, because meeting ending hover does not occur. One person leaves. This creates permission. A second person leaves. A third. The room empties in ninety seconds.
No explanation is offered by any party. No explanation is required. The meeting ended. People left.
The actual scenario diverged at 14:30 when nobody stood. That success, of not being the first to leave, makes repetition feel safer than reconsidering the behavior from scratch. The next meeting also ended at its stated time. Nobody left then either.
After enough repeats, the workaround survives even when the original inconvenience is gone. The original inconvenience was social uncertainty about leaving first. The workaround is waiting. The uncertainty resolved itself years ago. The waiting continues.
The work could proceed without the performance, yet the performance is what makes the work look properly coordinated. Under the governing rule, one successful use of meeting ending hover creates precedent for the next similar moment.
In the counterfactual, the person who leaves first is not remembered. They simply left. In the actual case, the meeting ended at 14:47 when someone said "okay" and closed their laptop.
That person is also not remembered.
The seventeen minutes are not remembered either. They are, however, still occurring.