Drew,
only chime in when it will serve a purpose, is in a civil discourse, and
isn't the same set of circular rants we have all heard before from the usual suspects.
While the ideal is laudable, you will seldom if ever find a discussion which meets all of the above criteria. Not referring to any individual here, but there have been times when the core issue of the discussion/arguement/flamewar was a valid one which should have been addressed by the appropriate leaders and was studiously ignored. In one case I asked an AMSAT officer about a particular matter which came up about 2 years ago, and was told with considerable condescension that he had not replied because he did not think the tone of the argument was worth his time. When pushed about the _topic_ in a polite manner, he became defensive, and still refused to discuss it. Even a couple of beers did not open him up. ;)
There is always a faction in any organization, whether it be political, religious, labor union, or hobby, that assumes that if the leaders just did their job correctly, all of that organization's goals would be achieved already. Since they are not, it is taken as proof that the leadership is lacking, or worse. It takes a moderately thick skin to work past this, but it must be done for communication to work. When it doesn't work, or is perceived as not working, people reach out and try new channels.
Enjoy your trip to KL7-land!
Alan WA4SCA