Both rooms have people in them, a start time, and something at stake. The difference sits underneath all of that, in what the room is built to produce.
A meeting produces movement. It takes a set of known items and pushes each one into a state: decided, assigned, or deferred. Its discipline is coverage. A good chair holds the clock, keeps the loudest voice from taking the hour, and lands every item somewhere. That is real skill. It is also the wrong instrument when the real problem is unspoken, because no amount of meeting discipline will surface it.
A facilitated dialogue produces understanding. It takes one question the group has not been able to answer and spends the whole hour on it. Nothing gets covered. Something gets uncovered. The facilitator is not protecting the schedule, she is protecting the conditions that let a person say the true thing instead of the safe one.
Why the Distinction Matters in Practice
Most organizations do not have a meeting problem. They have a problem that meetings cannot hold, and they keep handing it to meetings anyway. The item returns to the agenda every month, gets its twenty minutes, gets a next step, and comes back unchanged. That is not a failure of discipline. It is a category error. The group is trying to decide its way out of something it has not yet understood.