Eyebeam as interloper?

For the sake of heated discussion, let us consider the possible context of Eyebeam as the interloper onto Rhizome in order to garner its intellectual property to enrich the Eyebeam data stream. Although the Rhizome staff negotiated in good faith to have the Rhizome list join the eyebeam discussion, where is the line between the top-down and bottom up issues in matters like maillists?

What brings me to this is that I was unaware of any discussion on the part of the participants on the Rhizome list in regards to participating in this discussion. Therefore, could it be said that the participation was a top-down decision, and are the participants aware that the discussion may be published in a document sometime in the future?

This is not an indictment of Rachel or Beth; this is a very pointed question that asks whether listserv members who participate in discussions like this are complicit in the social contract that is struck by doing so? In other words, what is the line between the agendas of the grass roots and the administration/institution in legitimation, datamining, etc?

For the sake of discussion placed within the frame of Eyebeam's linking to the Rhizome lists (among others), could it be classified as the very interloper that the statement portends, mining discursive content for the use in a future document? Or, is such a forun a benevolent gesture on the part of organizers at Rhizome and Eyebeam to promote meaningful discourse within the genre of New Media?

in this case, I think the answer is fairly clear (I err on the side of altruism), but it might be useful to consider the possibilities…