Ken Follett wrote:
>
> > Lectures and slides give authority to those presenting, roundtables allow
> > authority to be spead out or challenged.
>
> The Need for Open Discussion at Preservation Conferences
>
> The strict limitation of control over the message that is allowed to be
> presented, through rigid screening of the speakers, gives those making the
> selections the control, and the background authority. This is fine
> considering you want to be able to focus an event. Further limiting the
> manner of presentation keeps the control intact and restricts the
> possibility of creativity, spontaneity, and possibly even the delivery of
> new information. This emphasis on strict control is not a very open process
> and will lead to excluding anyone who is not interested in the limited scope
> of the packaged message.
>
> A majority of PIN participants have strongly voiced in the past that if a
> preservation conference consists of academics blowing wind then they will
> not participate. I don't blame them, these are intelligent and active people
> who do not want to be lectured at. The heavy control methodology seriously
> erodes the idea of bringing preservationists together from a diversity of
> backgrounds. Heavy control is not a very democratic process, which I find
> ironic if it is being staged at a site which markets itself through an
> identification with the fight for democratic freedoms.
>
> My opinion is that selections for presentations should be made with an idea
> of increasing diversity, allow for duds at the cost of diversity, and do
> everything possible to empower the group to their own control... this means
> open discussion, standing outside the door and chatting, admitting the
> possibility of bad taste -- the aggregate event will be much more dynamic
> for the effort of freedom of expression. People remember who they talked to
> one-on-one, they do not remember the names of the presenters in an endless
> barrage of slide shows.
>
> A roundtable also makes it to easy for an authority to reveal the dolt in
> themselves. I was disturbed at one session I attended in in which whenever
> anyone from the attendance spoke out their opinions, and expressed their
> needs, that the discussion facilitator seemed to be telling them that they
> did not know what they were talking about and then proceeded to lecture them
> on what they really need. These open discussions are best done when the
> authority keeps their mouth shut, facilitates, but mainly LISTENS.
> --
> ][<en Follett
> SOS Gab & Eti -- http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5836
============
Ken:

I guess I do not really understand the point here. Is this a general
point or a specific point? If specific, be specific.

Are you saying that no requirements is the best democracy? And democracy
is the test of value for all efforts and events?

Also that the content of an event is meaningless and it is the
one-on-one interactions that make or break an event?

??
Bryan