Forum Poll for Party Unconference

"We need to know what kind of party you think this is: do we hold national meetings like ordinary political parties, or do we exist only on the internet?"

Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. I'm all for holding in-person meetings, as well as internet communication. However, the main criticisms of this conference are that it will only be able to hold 60 people, will cost £20 + travel expenses to attend, and that you seem to be expecting it to be almost mandatory for someone wanting an elected position in the party to attend. Some of us, Eric, don't think that's necessary, especially when a very small percentage of the party membership will actually be there.

On a side note, what is with the word 'unconference'? It's just a conference. I have no idea why 'unconference' is in the dictionary. A conference is where a group of people meet to confer. That is what is happening here.

Actually, "unconference" is quite a well-known word. See the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference

It was just meant to be a short reminder about the poll, not an extensive analysis of the merits and demerits of having such an event.

As you've already said over and over that you are against a national meeting, I don't see what you gain by repeating yourself here.

I just felt that the way you phrased it, it sounded a little dismissive of those who didn't support the 'unconference'; whether to hold national meetings 'like ordinary political parties', or exist 'only on the internet'. We already have real-life meetings, and the options you presented are not the only two. Whatsmore, I may well answer 'yes' to that question, but that doesn't mean I'm particularly keen on this conference; only down the line, when we're bigger.