I don't agree with everything about the way the conference was run, but I also think it's unrealistic to expect it to be possible to please everyone all the time. The complaint I heard most often was about the number of sessions taking place simultaneously -- too high for anyone to sit in on everything they want to know -- which though a problem I think speaks to the breadth that the organizers are trying to cover in only a few short days.

I'd also like to point out that Free Press had an open call for sessions many months ago, and anyone was free to submit ideas for sessions. If you didn't submit anything and are now complaining about the content, I'm not sure where the blame should lie. Of course, even with the submission process I never thought Free Press was very clear about what their selection criteria were going to be, so certainly if you submitted a panel idea and it was rejectedm you'd have a right to demand an explanation.

On a final note, I think it was extraordinarily courteous of the hotel or free press or whoever to let folks from the IMC use flipcharts paid for by Free Press and wifi access paid for by Free Press in a prominent space before/during the biggest session of the whole event. There may be a lot to be desired about the event but I think it was very classy of them to tolerate dissent (and even subsidize it, really) within the ranks of the attendees. How many other groups would have asked/demanded for those signs to be taken down, or demanded money to pay for the big charts, or something like that?