1. My only point would be if you're going to say "we already do that" just prepare to have a clinical discussion around the methods you're using and expect some feedback and even disagreements. My challenge to us all (myself included, of course) is to allow for some spirited debate while keeping things respectful and on subject.
2. One issue as I see it is that many infrastructures within the model of practice are so based on hierarchies and protocols that place the "sensei" on a pedestal of unquestioned correctness - that actual debate may be difficult or at the very least more challenging.
Just some thoughts on what these discussions sometimes looks like.
A clinical discussion by definition: extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical:
I have seen the nature of these clinical discussions. Who is providing analysis...based on what experience, who is the teachers/authority/ source to define correct or incorrect?
This of course leads to
Seems to me that FAVORABLE terms such as "authorities" "Big Dogs" "real experts" and other phrases are part of the vernacular used for teachers approved of in these "so called" clinical discussions.
"Senseis placed on pedestals" "you're the expert you tell me" and other times providing ill disguised contempt for established teachers efforts are shots across the bow, some seriously ugly and are reserved for aikiweb members and teachers that a group of amateurs with barely any experience don't approve of...and all based on what?
To use your own terminology- who's unquestioned correctness
or supposed expertise?
Just how does that kind of behavior and commentary fit ...into a dispassionate clinical discussion?
Which is most of the reason real discussion will never happen here anymore. I would guess, ever.
Having some measure of respect for the people we are supposed to be interested in sharing with goes a long way...and that has nothing to do with the subject itself. I agree with Keith, that many may not care at all either way, but others that might be interested in exploring this may see the message, killed by the messenger. We need to ask ourselves: Just how much "signal"
I again vote for NAMT as it is. Real discussion about IP/aiki isn't going to happen here anymore.
Related discussion of how it fits into arts will appear here and there; if it is aikido related it will be above, non aikido related it will be in NAMT.
There is simply no need for any change.