> 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