I don't see this as repeating groups in the first place; "repeating groups" is a topic that's much misunderstood, with some people classifying far more things as repeating groups than others. When Ted Codd (in his paper "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks" published in CACM vol 13 no 6, June 1970) defined what is now called 1st normal form a repeating group was an attribute in a non-simple domain, that is in a domain where an individual attribute actually represented multiple values in underlying domains. A string of distinct attributes like "attendance at 1st meeting", "attendance at second meeting" and so on in a single row was not a repeating group, and would not be expected to be normalised out. I know it is currently regarded by a lot of people as heresy to rely on Codd's definition of first normal form, but I find it quite satisfactory since I can't think of any update anomalies, insertion amomalies, or deletion anomalies that arise from using that definition rather than one that would forbid me to store someone's home landline number and his mobile number in the same row because "two telephone numbers is a repeating group". There is of course the restriction that the number and domains of attributes in each row of a relation is defined by the relation, so is the same for every row in the relation, and that often makes it necessary to split things out to avoid simulating a variable number of columns by use of nulls, but I don't see how that applies here; and as a practical matter it doesn't make much sense to have a relation with so many attributes that the sheer number of them adds to the programming difficulty, but I don't see that as applying here either.

edit: incidentally, "repeating group" is pre-relational terminology, it's a pity that term isn't shunned and replaced for relational theory by Codd's "non-simple domain".