Exactly.

I did not need to be there.
We should have had the agenda emailed to us ahead of time.
We should have started exactly on time.

Agenda items should have been divided up before hand and small groups could have met earlier.
Or , better, done the whole thing over email.
Getting details worked out can be done in phone conferences also. . . . Discussing bs and going off on tangents that will not end in good places --- bad meeting practice.
Worse, this was old stuff from months ago, still unsettled and still boring.

I think a good meeting is where everyone needs to be there to help make decisions or vote.
Also, the leader should end the meeting with a summary of sorts so we leave feeling clear about what was accomplished.
Also, when I used to be in a position that required me to call meetings, I never never let folks get side tracked for more than 30 seconds. We stayed on track and were done in the time established on the agenda --- no freeeeking open ended time.

Yes, I was time nazi when I ran meetings.
We usually had one or two clear tasks communicated ahead of time via agenda on email, met and talked about that task, concluded the task, and left satisfied that something had been accomplished.
(People did naturally want to go off task but I told them to save that for another meeting and no one ever wanted another meeting).

This worked BECAUSE most people came to the meeting prepared. In other words, meeting time was sacred. We were respectful about the shared sacrifice of time and space.

M