Bromo --
I think that an ordinary citizen can take or leave the forums -- and can take or leave inworld discussions -- but RA members must be held to a higher standard of activity. Personally, I have almost the opposite feeling that you do with regard to the merits of inworld meetings and the forums.
I find inworld meetings to be shallow and blustery -- rarely delving into the issues with the detail necessary to resolve them. This is a defect of conversation bound up in time and the action/response of inperson talk. Also, I find that the presence of certain agitators tends to make inworld conversation worse as they attempt to hijack and control the conversations -- thereby stifling the exchange of ideas.
The forum suffers from none of these defects. We can express our ideas -- refine them if we misspeak in our first attempt by editting the post -- not worry about being interrupted before we set the entire thought or argument out. In other words, in my opinion, these forums are a far better medium for discussing the issues as more than soundbites. Soundbites might be good for elections (and CARE is a past-master of soundbite politics) -- but when it comes to policy, soundbites don't cut it.
That said -- as much as I find inworld meetings to be inferior -- I attend them. I believe that as an RA member, my job requires that I express myself fully (which can only be done on the forums) , fully understand the rationales for the proposals (again, best done on the forums -- by reading the supporting posts), and then defend my position in inworld RA meetings. An RA member cannot do the job properly without doing all these things.
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.