[LGM] [CREATE] LGM and divisiveness

[Gregory Pittman]

On 01/18/2014 01:42 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 18:07 GMT Gregory Pittman wrote:
> 
>> As we approach LGM 2014, it would be good to know that at some point we
>> all are rowing in the same direction. We need to put aside differences
>> of opinion and consider how we can make LGM an attractive and
>> trouble-free event for everyone.
>>
>> Even without some artificial code that we might sprinkle holy water on
>> and make sacred, I think we have established that most of us have an
>> opinion that wants to keep LGM a friendly event for everyone who attends.
>>
>> Let's face it, LGM isn't a democracy in some elective/voting sense,
>> since it is very unclear who has voting rights and whether all voting
>> rights are the same. We don't have a clear way of generating consensus.
>> We may have opinions for and against, but the (apparent) absence of an
>> opinion may be an indicator of unawareness of the vote or even what it's
>> about (or just being fed up with it all). And someone who has never
>> attended before and never will again has a vote too.
>>
> 
> I think you are reading too much into this. There is a practical reason why voting for the next venue happened/happens in a face to face meeting. Somebody need to (1) volunteer, (2) be trusted by the community, to *organize* the next event. 
> 
> The latter is most rare - it is not as if any random keen 16-year-old can cope with the logistics of hundreds of people from different countries arriving, nor any random unseen unheard of rarely participating person be trusted to volunteer to organize. 
> 
>> I also think it is magical thinking to believe that somehow this can all
>> be hashed out at LGM. Just look at what happens as the venue for the
>> next LGM gets "decided" at LGM. The vote, such as it is, takes place
>> only with those attending the meeting, as if those not present don't
>> care and don't matter. I suppose if they did care, they might be more
>> likely not to care about decisions they were left out of.
>>
>> I think we all have experiences with people who are obsessed with some
>> issue. All they can talk about is their issue. People don't realize how
>> IMPORTANT this is. How ESSENTIAL it is. About all you can do is to avoid
>> this person, not start up a conversation with this person, unless you
>> like to argue. In an organization, this can be toxic. Let's try not to
>> drift in that direction.
>>
> 
> I think you are advocating what some called "social bullying". Many LGM attendees are there because they are passionate about *something*. Of course they will, and rightfully so, should talk about their ONE IDEA all the time. That's the whole point. 
> 

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems you only give an
example of what I'm talking about. Thanks for that.

Greg