OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".
There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"
There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"
While it's technically a misnomer, many of the scaling solutions under discussion, such as Lightning Network and payment channels, will likely still require a larger blocksize in order to function effectively.
Under what load? Lightning roll-out now would increase the potential tx rate by orders of magnitude. There is no orders of magnitude growth in Bitcoin use right now, so contrary to your assertion, I believe Lightning right now would function effectively. What you mean is probably more like "function effectively with Billions of Bitcoin users", which is plausible.
With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize. Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.
And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.
