"The true leader is always willing to be led" (Carl Gustav Jung)

This is an impressive and well thought out document Larry. A document written like the pro that you are. You proved yourself to be an even more capable and crafty thinker than even I imagined, and you know, my friend, that I have deep respect for you- deep respect for your mind and your imagination. You clearly worked hard for this one- word after word after word. For days on end from what I understand. And from this rigorous and open engagement with all the issues on the table, what did we, the community, get in the end?
We got a brilliantly executed smoke screen and word-smithing of the problem away.
Whooosssshhh. . . all gone. . . In short, you gave us a 3,251 word exploration of, and elaboration on, the word "NO".

Unfortunately, I have tuned this document upside down, downside up, frontside back and backside front and I can't seem to get any leadership to fall out of it from anywhere.
Instead, I find a finely crafted defense on all fronts and general retrenchment falling out all over the floor. In short, you used this grand opportunity to gather the people to give a State of the Man address to instead distract us from the real issues at hand- the state of community inspiration about the event, the awesomness of the art there, and how our grand experiment is going to go forward with beauty into the future.

You really didn't want to see how any of it this could possibly work, did you Larry? Your imagination certainly could have if you wanted to. You are trying really hard to keep your fingers stuck firmly in your ears, aren't you?

Instead of addressing the real and legitimate concerns of the participants, you skillfully and selectively cull from our weakest ideas and thought experiments concerning participant enfranchisement, elaborate on them opportunistically, show logistical "impossibility", and then announce that ALL attempts at enfranchisement around Burning Man processes are logistically impossible. Not even outside panels and guest curators, which most orgs in the world don't seem too have much problem incorporating, you announce to be a morass of logistical difficulty and technical incompetence. You try to wipe away the entire petition by a long dissection of all the ways any form of voting is impossible, when your very own ePlaya tech admin has said "I am confident we can support the web aspect of this idea" and various other experts in online voting systems have recently come forward to say all this can be done at reasonable effort, technically and logistically. The question only seems to be where and how we might best use some type of voting to most interestingly engage the community in the larger project? We even have volunteers ready to build the
system (as in free ones). We can explore the various ways this might work in detail
elsewhere. But it is the refusal to engage it positively, and instead go after the ideas in the most opportunistic, negative and, worst case scenario forms that I find most disappointing.

If the people want this, surely we can come up with some checks and balances between the Guest Curators, the LLC, Ladybee, and voting. Voting might only be among those who have purchased thickets for the current year, encouraging people to buy their tickets early, or the enfranchised pool might be the current and preceeding year participants, so we don't exclude anyone, nor include too many. Surely some form of pre-jurying and post-jurying would be needed, and some final discretion to catch and affirm the good that might get
missed in the voting. But I am confident the "missed" in some combination of voting and
Guest Curation, with collaboration of the LLC/art dept, would be far less that what is missed currently, not to mention that which is not even sought out and cultivated with the present system. MAKE THE NET BIGGER LARRY. We can catch more art. And of course, we will still give you final veto so no sneaky artist tries to propose another AMD (Artwork of Mass Destruction), threatening to suck the very lungs from unsuspecting children at play in grassy fields as far away as Wadsworth. . .

Why do you shrink from such interesting and imaginative challenges Larry? There are so many possibilities here and so many people are experimenting thoughtfully with the ideas.
I thought we were an experimental community, open to new ideas and challenges. Now all
we get from you is a derisive summary that the whole thing would descend into a "People's Choice Awards" (suggesting that our people are, in fact, idiots and can't be trusted to be self-reliant and informed decision makers, after reasonable packaging of the choices).

Most astonishingly, you go so far as to suggest that democracy *itself* is inherently a fractious endeavor that will divide us and we should be happy for the calm seas of the benevolent dictatorship we currently have. Brilliantly executed Larry. Great to know that Democracies and Republics just don't work in the end. I thank you for this revelation of deep political truth. Oh, and by the way, do you think you might be able to
give that Ring back to Frodo? The Ring Larry. Yes, THAT Ring. You should give that
thing back to Frodo right about now. That Ring is clearly messing with your mind Larry.

Aside from the MIA on leadership, let's also take a look at what else is MIA in the document. You show not even the slightest inclining of interest in introducing other people into the art curation and decision making process with any real voice. You suggest the need for maybe some extra grunt labor, cause there are going to be so many grant applications this year, but you give no indication of how this potentially new position might be used interestingly to bring in new ideas and visions each year, resulting in guaranteed change each year. Aside from this vague staff addition, nothing is offered.
Not a single crumb. Nothing.

No acknowledgement that many feel the event is not on a good path and there is widespread dissatisfaction and unrest amongst the participants as well as the BMorg office staff itself. No acknowledgement there were any real issues with the art this year other than some challenges from the weather (What? Anyone remember the weather in 2000 and the art we had that year? Hint Larry: PEOPLE MAKE ART WHEN THEY ARE INSPIRED). No acknowledgement that we seem to be mindlessly reproducing old forms and ideas and we are desperately in need of an infusion of new blood and inspiration. Just silence on this and silence on most everything else.

Your document shows itself to be an expertly crafted document of defense, and not a document of leadership, by the issues it chooses NOT to engage- issues that we reference throughout the We Have a Dream proposal, issues that have been at the core of the current dissatisfaction and discussion on every online forum, listserv and email exchange around this petition.

Larry, you also skillfully play the "We-San-Francisco-People-Don't-Get-It" card on the regional issue, when our proposal specifically suggests ways to use the guest curators to offer the regionals real and interesting roles around the planning and orchestration of the central event. In fact, the New York and Boston regionals have already voiced their support for the proposal, unsolicited. We have yet to start a discussion with the other regionals, but plan to do so. The online forums have been coming up with more ways for using our basic ideas to greater invest and involve the regionals in concrete aspects of the cultivation, curation and facilitation of art towards the playa, as well as their own regional events.

You call the guest curator idea a myopic SF proposal? Larry, really . . . You cynically list only The Shipyard and The Odeon Bar as example guest curators, when over half of our proposed list is drawn from regional and international groups. Go read the list again.
Not a very honest representation of what was proposed Larry. Nor really a good faith effort at considering how these ideas might be interesting, potentially workable, and at the same time IMPROVE regional participation in the main event. You simple brush these ideas off the table, like so many annoying crumbs.

But most disturbingly Larry, you do not comment on the 10,000LB ELEPHANT in the room.
That we, as a community, have lost our focus on the ART. That once upon a time, Burning Man was an Art Festival. Now it is a Community Festival. The delicate flower we discovered out in the desert long ago was the realization that collaborative creative work is a radically powerful vehicle for building strong and meaningful community. In fact, it was once argued to be a new founding principle for society itself, or at least you used to like to ramble on at length about this back in the day, and I thought you still believed it. We still believe it. Don't you?

But what do we have now at the event? What we have now is a rather impoverished direct lunge at community in the form of a big hug and vague sense of belonging by gathering for a big party, sparsely decorated with art, with many feeling that a week long E binge is a relevant form of radical self-expression. What we had before, and want to move forward with again, are the deep and strong ties formed in the crucible of WILDLY COLLABORATIVE ART-MAKING, in the harshest of conditions, challenged constantly by our inexperience and inability, but ultimately realized by the people that join together to make it happen- and stay together afterwards as a community as a result. Rastafaran working with Raver working with Redneck working with Yahoo working with Bitter Old Fart - building the fabulous things together and actually not beating each other with hammers in the process.

It was in this crucible of unlikely creative collaboration that we saw the magic happen.
It was and is the SECRET SAUCE. You know this to be true Larry. It is the CORE TRUTH of Burning Man and it should be the core truth that we are projecting outwards through the regional communities. It is the mechanism that might truly reform civilization as we know it, if Burning Man does in fact offer this potential in any of its ideas. This is the magic and new discovery we have to offer the world. So why are we hiding it? Why are we deprecating our MASSIVELY COLLABORATIVE and intensely unusual art-making to a simple notion of community with the snake oil cultish promise of "belonging" "identity" and "instant community" under the Burning Man banner?

Again Larry, thank you for your elegantly constructed document. Or rather, maybe I should thank you for this elegantly constructed obfuscation. You make it too easy. Your document is a complete obfuscation of the real issues screaming out from every nook and cranny of the Burning Man community. How can you simply ignore all this dissatisfaction, unrest and people simply walking away in droves in frustration. The current state of affairs is not the rosy bloom and calm sea you suggest in your note. Larry, let me say this clearly again: WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE EVERYONE! WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE MAGIC!
WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THE ART!

Why in the face of these challenges, in the face of so many diverse voices standing up to say they want change and they want this project to be vital again, do you not offer us visionary leadership? Visionary leadership is what you are all about? You can conjure it up like few others on the planet. So why didn't you offer it here? Why instead do you respond to this upwelling of passion, reawakened interest and attempt at creative thinking with a simple dismantling of our first imaginings of possible solutions. WE ARE TRYING TO IMAGINE HOW TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. Can't you engage with us on this and make our ideas better? Or would you rather just eviscerate the loose ends of our first thoughts so you can keep it all for yourself and your immediate circle? I thought you said in your text that, "Burning Man belongs, in fact, to everyone who gives to it. . ." In truth, that does not really seem to be the case.

What have you offered us in the end Larry? You have offered us nothing. The answer is:
"We own it all". The answer is: "Everything is just fine as it is." Did everyone hear else hear that throughout the document? "EVERTHING IS JUST FINE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW SO LEAVE US ALONE". "Maybe we'll tweak some things here and there, add a little money, be explicit about the number of funded projects that can deviate from the theme or interactivity requirements, but the system is sound and producing good things". In short:
"We are not interested in your input. We don't want you participating in the process, but we *do* want you to "participate" and we will continue to affirm "participation" on every document and communication related to the project. What?

Kinda rough Larry, but at the same time, it was a damn smooth read on the first pass. So smooth, so seductive, so calmly in control of the "facts". I felt like I was listening to Cheney in the debate. Wow! No wonder all those Nevada politicos ultimately fell to your schemes. As usual, I continue to be amazed by and learn from your force of will and strength of intellect- even when misguided and in opposition to what so many people out here are saying they desperately want to build together with you.

So Larry, I congratulate you. That was an extremely impressive bashing of the ball back across the net. I think I was still feeling the wind at my face for at least an hour after the ball flew by. The wind has now subsided a bit, but I'm still not really sure where the ball went. Do you know? I can't see it? Can you? Can anyone else around here see it? Maybe there was, in fact, no ball?

What I do know now is that this is going to take some work. Larry is not going to swallow the populist pill easily, in any form. It is going to take lots of discussion, collaboration and organizing amongst the community. The community wants to find some appropriate modes of enfranchisement so as to more interestingly give away their creativity. And we are going to figure out a way that Larry will have to accept this trade of increased creativity for increased enfranchisement- which anyone not in possession of that damn Ring would only see as fair and right.

Unfortunately Larry, you have now said clearly in public and for all to see, that you are not interested in allowing any new forms of community input, co-curation or co-orchestration of the art at the event. You want to run it by yourself with your immediate posse. And that we should just stay out of things. You want it to stay just as it is right now. If that is the case, we should expect this to produce about the same results as seen in 2004. And that, as we all know, is not acceptable.

So what do we do now everyone? Larry has clearly dropped the vision ball. Do we want to pick it up off the ground? And if we do, what are we going to do with it?

Jim