As Dana said Jen K and John H have both left. msbelle has noted that she had left for a few months and Karl posted himself that he has moved on due to board issues. Cindy has left as well. Newbie beej is now gone, possibly dissuading other lurkers from posting. We're not to know, but there are over 1000 registered participants here. Personally, I have cut back my posting because I either am afraid to post, or feel ignored. Maybe that's my failing, I'm happy to acknowledge it, so I'm ready to move on.
These people left for a variety of reasons, not solely and specifically because of a more aggressive posting style. Also, they left over a long stretch of time - not indicative of a recent sea-change at b.org.
Sean, Steph - y'all are getting all riled up and bringing the hot rhetoric. That's your prerogative, but I'm getting more heat than light at the moment. I do understand feeling protective about the board, and perhaps resentful about Rafmun's allegations, but the board's fine and it didn't do any damage, and I think some useful things have come out of this discussion even if they are not directly related to either my original post, or Rafmun's points.
Useful Things I Got From This Discussion:
Matt's history of the Bronze: I've really come to rely on the perspective of people with longtime experience in different communities. Ple's tales of running boards are always filled with rueful wisdom and, Matt's story is another excellent example of both what's wonderful about an internet community and also its limit and scope. It seems very important to me to reiterate - we can't be all things to all people. It's best for us to nurture those things which we have come to identify as distinctly our own.
Shawn's Good Citizenship: I got knocked around a bit when I first used the phrase "social capital" in Bureaucracy, but it's really not such a bad thing. It makes people feel anxious about being judged, I guess, or worrying about hierarchy of people that are esteemed, but Shawn's point is that it's not about how you lose your social capital. It's how you gain it. People that organize the F2F get it. People that organize charities get it. People who reach out to other Buffistas get it. People who, by the quality of their writing, their wit, their erudition, their insight, their compassion, their snark - get it. We know what we value. When you add to the community, the community values you. That's not so abstract or scary. That's a positive.
Nutty's corollaries: Her quick summary of what went right and awry in this discussion articulated (for me) some of my inchoate objections. And as many people have noted, there's nothing at all wrong with aspiring to some level of graciousness, to reflecting on whether I'm adding or subtracting to the discourse. I remember a time when I'd been backbiting in the threads, and seeing one of Nutty's posts in Bureaucracy (long time back) and just thinking, "Yeah, I need to quit crapping on things. What can I bring to the board, insead of bitching about it."
Elena's point: The US constitution is designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. It's wise and useful to be accomodating to the minority at times. To bend a little makes a lot of thing work.
Something I articulated: The idea of the center and the edge. Sometimes you are going to be in the minority and digging in your heels against a tidal flood going the other direction is not the best response. We will differ in opinion. Not everybody gets what they want. That's not the point - the point is about maintaining a center place where we can (see above) nurture the distinctly Buffista values. Which includes free discoursee, snarking, civility, discursive riffing, courtesy, play, kindness. We will risk offense, but we don't go out of our way to give it.