Brian, I would encourage you to engage in a wider consultation for your spring event, and discuss and collectively agree on the media contact that might take place, or any media contact in the interim.
As a vendor, and a player, I am conflicted in one sense. Ultimately we do occupy a grey area in the legislation and there *is* real risk in these kind of events. My personal and work life comes into conflict in that area, so while some here may poo-poo the risk I refer to, please accept that from my point of view, there are risks which I need to have some assurance of control over.
As for rumors circulating that we (as a team) torpedo'd this event, those are completely unfounded, although I can accept that the position certain members with team authority (including myself) communicated left no doubt that we felt the event was ill advised given the prior media contact and the current debate surrounding that. I think the fact the the concerns were 1) not addressed, 2) we were attacked openly for those concerns is a failure that we as a community should address and resolve. But being vocal and being influential are two different things. I think our influence here is limited. As you can see, my team affiliation in this regard has no bearing on my opinion, as I am at somewhat odds with my other fellow members.
Unfortunately I don't think internet d-boards are a very good place for those kinds of discussions because its an environment that transmits 10% of ones message, leaving 90% of the communications telemetry up for grabs (ie: body language, intonation, inflection). I'd recommend a face-to-face on this at some point when people have chilled out a little and are ready to talk.