Dialogue in Craft Brewing

What is dialogue, really?

Dialogue can be a tangled mess

Two recent Twitter threads can hopefully serve as catalysts to much needed problem solving in the craft beer community (and perhaps American society). BeerKulture and TheThirstyWench published articles and shared them on Twitter. Recapping them here will not do them justice. (Very) basically, the latter took on misogyny and the former racism.  Some interesting twittering followed. There were several calls for conversations to take place to address and fix the these social abominations.

On the surface, it is great to know that people are pushing for dialogue.  My worry, though, is that "dialogue" is not fully appreciated for what it is, what it does, and what it takes. There is no magic wand to make things "right" or get rid of the nastiness. Just talking in a group won't do; if not done properly, then things can get worse. Still, success isn't impossible. We can tackle difficult subjects and inspire, if not bring about, positive change through talking and listening*. It takes hard, dedicated work that will provoke intense reactions. What the craft beer community seems to want is Dialogue (with a capital "D").

"Dialogue" has been conflated with restorative justice methods, debate, discussion, conversation, and other practices. If it's anybody's fault, we are to blame; the conflict management community for not speaking up. This is the main reason for this article.

So, what is Dialogue? As a conflict management specialist, there are varying models. My former workplace, @Meta-Culture, utilizes one model for interfaith Dialogue. We engage other models depending on the situation. The @PubDialogues uses a "pop-up", world cafe model. But they all share core principles, and start out as tangled messes, like some of the utility poles I saw in India (actually, the one above is in Kathmandu).

Dialogue is different than debate (where arguments are presented and a “winner” is chosen). It is not advocacy or a platform. It does not lead participants to a presumed solution. Grandstanding is not tolerated. People don't talk over others. The goal of Dialogue is to solve a problem, not force arguments. It is a facilitated group effort to overcome challenges at their core. Why facilitated? Without an experienced facilitator, well-intentioned conversations can turn into rallies, partiality, bullying and unchecked aggression. Topics of conversation would tend to be myopic or unfocused, cluttered or quiet. A facilitator tracks ideas, allows everyone a voice, utilizes conflict management techniques, provides clarity and keeps things civil. 

Dialogue requires more than discussing something, talking over an issue or airing grievances. In order to effectively engage in problem-solving, some things need to happen:

• Understand the problem (REALLY understand it)

• Make sure the problem is not a symptom of other problems

• Understand those other problems

• Identify those affected

• Communicate ideas for solutions

This isn't all, but sustained Dialogue is the best way to get started.

The craft beer community may just be the most suitable community for Dialogue efforts on social issues.  It is collaborative, social, passionate, and connected. So, is the craft beer community ready for dialogue? Because things can get dicey right out of the gate and steam can be lost quickly. Those Twitter threads, when looked at through a conflict management perspective, reinforce this question.

Dialogue is challenging, difficult, frustrating, straining, rewarding and most likely not what is expected. Each participant may feel like walking out at some point. The phrase, "I just don't understand why we're talking about this thing" will be uttered. So will, "that's a stupid question" and "no, no...you're so wrong". Dialogue is not straight forward. It takes time, patience, energy and sacrifice.

The core of Dialogue is inquiry. Questions. Lots of them. And lots of different types of, and motives for, questions. Some seek information while others are designed to challenge current thinking. Some may seem easy, silly, defensive, dumb, aggressive, offensive or redundant. Every question asked in a dialogue is important and should not be dismissed. This can challenge listening*.

I could preface a Dialogue by saying, “now, try not to be offended” or “don’t take this the wrong way”. Well, to me, these suppress valuable information. Plus, I can’t tell you how to feel, or judge your feelings. Expect to be offended; just say so and we can address it. There will be a lot of "why" questions; the simplest, most annoying question ever—and most useful.

So, with this in mind, let’s look at an example of the types of questions that may be asked in a Dialogue for the craft beer community. Here’s a “simple” one.

What is racism?

I’m guessing your first thought is to define it. That’s fine.

Merriam-Webster

1:         a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2          a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

             b: a political or social system founded on racism

3:         racial prejudice or discrimination

Well, the definition is just one part. It doesn’t explain a whole lot. What else is racism? Rodney King being beaten by cops? Yes, that’s an example. What else IS racism? Let’s look at it from other angles:

• Could it be a response to something? What?

• What about a symptom? Of what?

• What does it require?

• Is it taught, otherwise learned or biological?

• Where does it exist? Not exist?

• When, how did it start?

• What purpose does it serve?

• How do some people think of it as good? Why?

• Is it an action, notion, idea, or something else?

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Responses to these questions will likely give rise to other questions. And the Dialogue can go like this for quite a while. Some take months or years. So, craft beer community, that's a basic introduction to Dialogue. If this is what you want, fan-frickin-tastic!  We're ready to help.

*Listening is more than just hearing the words of someone else. It requires an understanding of what someone is saying, why they are saying it, how they feel about it and the point they are trying to make. It also involves clarifying what you hear and interpret. It's a difficult skill to master, which is why having facilitators helps in a group setting. 

Women’s March — The Next Step and Where It Can Lead

Looking Forward

As I write this, the Women’s March is currently taking place across the country and the numbers are staggering. So far, it’s been peaceful and I am unaware of any counter protests. My hope is that the day remains peaceful and the message is effective. To do so, however, requires more than a march.  To effect change of this kind is not a grassroots effort. It is within the grassroots: Within individuals. And to begin change it will take individual efforts to communicate with other individuals on a personal level. Face-to-face conversations and dialogue of curiosity* aimed at understanding. This is not easy. It is not quick. It is not straightforward.In mediation we help parties to understand their own interests AND those of the other party. While the first task seems easy, it can be just as difficult as the second. Understanding one’s own interests requires introspection and personal challenging of positions. It most often requires a recognition or realization that s/he is wrong, which meets resistance.  Many times a party is so focused on her/his position that they forget why they took such position in the first place, or their reasoning is influenced by emotion. This is not wrong, and emotions ought to be acknowledge. Yet, allowing their total influence just makes progress more difficult.If a goal of the Women’s March is for Trump to leave office…and he leaves office…then what? Does this really resolve the issue? If the issue is his removal, then yes it does. If the issue is working towards (inter)national equality, then it really does not. There are more steps to take. And this leads us to the second effort: Understanding the other party’s interest. Like the first, this effort is not easy. Making it more difficult is the fact that the other party is not really a party—it’s a widely held (loosely or tightly) belief. Such belief could be, and most often is, tied up in a labyrinth of other issues.To assume that some people believe in inequality is a mistake. Just like assuming those who voted for Trump also support inequality; there’s more to their vote than just one issue. (For over a century political strategies included the “single issue platform” and we have learned to vote according to one, perhaps two, issues. Yet there are many more that need to be considered).  We do not know the narratives or backgrounds of, and influences upon, other people. Much like the scene in Good Will Hunting, does reading “Oliver Twist” encapsulate the identity and personality of all orphans? No. It takes time, effort and intense curiosity* to understand anyone, including those who support President Trump and/or inequality. This takes practice. Yes, practice. It is easy to fall back into positions and ignore, forget or lose sight of interests.Below is a quick list to practice to assist in effecting change. It is part of the next step and not a checklist for completion of the goal:

• A position is the outward efforts used to secure or promote an interest. Often, positions are confused with interests, but they can be quite different. Try to find your interests in (much) smaller issues, such as your favorite restaurant, or sports team, or pair of shoes
• Do not assume you know what the other person believes or is thinking. Would you be comfortable with them doing so about you?
• Do not assume you know why they believe, think or act as they do
• To address a problem, it must first be understood. To understand it, it must be identified. To be identified, questions of curiosity* need to be asked
• Such questions should be asked of one’s self as well. Every time an answer is given, ask “why is that?” Sounds annoying, and it is, but it is also crucial
• Separate the person from the problem. Once a position or argument moves to ad hominem attacks or assumptions, progress is at best halted, and more often than not, it is destroyed
• Recognize a false dichotomy. Much of the world is not “either/or” as there are important factors between the extremes. We see this a lot in political arguments: If someone does not agree to A then they oppose B-Y, and are therefore in the Z camp. This false dichotomy divides America more than anything else. Find the in-between
• Recognize that the other person is just that: A person. Chances are they are not the devil incarnate, hold Nazi beliefs or want to live on welfare their whole life. They share many of the same interests as you. It’s up to you to find and illustrate these
• Be curious*, refrain from judgment and welcome questions from others, keeping responses on topic and away from personal attacks

* Curiosity.  In the political climate, we tend to ask questions in order to find out if the responder is either with us or against us. The “got ya” questions run rampant in this type of atmosphere, but they don’t really accomplish anything aside from perpetuating a false dichotomy and stagnating efforts of progress. Questions of curiosity seek answers for themselves and not to judge. They help us learn and we must ask such questions with that goal in mind. Learning to improve ourselves, not pigeonhole others.Example: Mr. Trump’s comments about women that were recorded on a bus. Many judged him on the spot and resisted his campaign. I am not saying these people are wrong. I would encourage questions of curiosity: Why would he say such things? What happened in his life that would lead him to feel it is OK and proper to say such things? What was his goal to say what he did?  Did he actually do what he said he did? And, what influenced him to act the way he said he did? In other words, what shaped his personal identity that affected his actions and words?  From these questions we can learn more about external influences on Mr. Trump—and since these are external to him, then they are capable of affecting anyone. We must strive to understand those so we may address them and effect change.

---

 

Debate and Dialogue

Differences in Structure, Practice and Goals

Remember those presidential debates? You know the ones, where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were asked questions that they didn’t answer and instead talked about each other?  Yeah, I tried to block those out of my mind, too. But, they happened and had at least some influence in deciding the next president of the United States of America. Think about that: three televised debates of limited duration, scope and depth influenced our election. Again. Since Kennedy vs. Nixon, televised debates have garnered more salience in deciding who holds public office.  As if debate by itself was not bad enough.As conflict management specialists, we see debate as, shall we say, not the best method to resolving disputes or finding solutions to problems. This isn’t to say that debate is always bad. It does have some merits. It forces debating parties to hone their message, strengthen their argument and probe for weak spots in their opponent’s arguments. Those watching can consider points, counterpoints or the lack thereof. They could glean new information or perspective. In the end, debate could enhance knowledge of debated issues and shed inconsistencies. Except in today's world, it usually doesn't. Debate has several definitions, most of which describe it as a "discussion of opposing views" or "opposing arguments". That is, the focus is on the nature of opposition to determine which side is the stronger. And this seems to be widely accepted practice of debate. In most cases debate focuses on probing others’ statements for weak spots. It follows Sun Tzu: don't attack the strong points, attack the weak points. The aim is to win the battle, not to understand why there is a battle.We saw this in the presidential debates where the chief weak spots were the candidates themselves. The hierarchy of priorities went, from the top down: Attack opponent, attack opponent’s past, attack opponent’s message, attack opponent’s associates, attack opponent’s experience, promote own message, promote themselves, promote something else that sounds good, address the question, address the issue. That does not set up a clear, or even murky, road to solutions. In fact, there is no road. Consequently, important issues are not only ignored, they seem to be relegated to trivial nuances. And by example, this influences the public spheres of interaction: citizens engage in similar debates, thus getting everybody nowhere and increasing tension. In the end, Americans focus on probing for weak spots, attacking messengers and their message, and reshaping priorities instead of understanding issues and developing solutions. Winning the debate becomes the goal, improving and strengthening ourselves, each other and the country be damned.Dialogue is quite different, and more difficult. Within a debate, a strong, well-articulated argument with no weaknesses is avoided by the opponent, who then engages another tactic (e.g. attack the messenger). Within a dialogue, that same argument is greeted with “excellent point. How do we engage that?” Ideas are recognized and analyzed, not to solely find weaknesses, but to improve on them. Dialogue engages brainstorming, creative thinking, critical analysis and application.Because the goals of debate and dialogue are different, so, too are their procedures, expectations and outcomes. The goal of a debate is for participants to convince the audience to accept their argument over their opponent’s, usually by any means necessary. An argument in debate need not be complete, truthful, accurate, fair, relevant or logical. It just has to persuade. The topic of debate serves only as a launching pad from which the audience is launched far away.Dialogue aims for participants to discuss issues critically, openly and honestly with respect, civility and patience. If they are not actively looking for new viewpoints and ideas, then they are open to doing so. This means that contentious topics are not avoided, and polarized positions are not taken for granted. “That’s your opinion” becomes, “please help me understand why you think/believe that.” While participants should not aim to persuade others, they should be flexible in their stances, positions, and opinions. Understanding an issue and the various perspectives of that issue is paramount in dialogue. Differences do not equate to division. Disagreement offers opportunity. Dialogue participants understand that the best solutions can come from various viewpoints effectively engaged.The difficulty resides in the openness of participants. Disagreements tend to make people defensive and emotional. Animosity can creep in bringing resentment and  distrust. Critical analysis can erode into cynical opposition, leading to debate. In many situations an impartial or neutral facilitator is needed to manage the dialogue. They are not there to direct conversation, but to keep it on track, civil and engaging. A facilitator will keep track of points of view, ideas, points of contention, areas of commonality and side issues that can affect the current topic. This takes practice and a good facilitator goes unnoticed during a dialogue or meeting, until afterwards.In dialogue, agreement is not necessarily the goal. Good conversation, challenged opinions and increased communication are the primary motives for engaging in dialogue. From there, participants can discover, create, improve and implement solutions. The biggest difference between debate in dialogue is that debate focuses on opinions, viewpoints, and arguments. Dialogue focuses on the challenges, problems, and issues that underscore those opinions, viewpoints and arguments.  Debate seeks to win/persuade; Dialogue seeks to inform and solve. 

---

 

Can Craft Breweries Save America?

Craft brewing in America is booming, providing consumers a diverse selection from over 4,000 breweries. But some of those breweries have potential to offer the American public something else: A conduit for national (and personal) progress. If 2016 has taught us anything it is that America has communication problems. From our private lives to political leadership, America is drowning in oceans of cynical opposition and blame; that differences equate to division, and division creates “sides”, and those sides must do battle to produce a “winner”. When we concentrate on debate, we sacrifice truth, accuracy, and finding and creating solutions. Debate often serves as a roadblock. Winning is not solving.America’s Founding Fathers knew that debating each other was perilous.  As Benjamin Franklin stated, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”  Infighting and banter would have, literally, led to their deaths. Instead, they sat down, face to face, to discuss differences and create new avenues, which led to independence and, later, the Constitution. And they did this without telephones, telegraphs, planes, trains, cars, the Internet and social media.Their conduit was public spaces: Local taverns and inns, many of which were small breweries.  While there, they engaged in Dialogue: In-person discussions that were honest, contentious and civil. They didn’t abandon debate, but they didn’t rely on it. They invited critical analysis and kept cynical opposition at bay (for the most part). Their dialogues contained more than critique; they invoked critical thinking, they looked for new insights and various perspectives, and cautioned against hubris to reac historic solutions. America today lacks the overall awareness of dialogue, acknowledgement of its benefits, and the skills to engage it. Thankfully, however, the safe spaces our Founding Fathers used have returned. Enter craft breweries. Many are local businesses. They are popular and public. They attract people from all walks of life. The ethos of a local craft brewery is community, and that of the craft brewing industry is comradery. Community and comradery are ingredients of a great recipe. When mixed with Dialogue they can generate progress, problem solving and unity.Yet, Dialogue is tricky and difficult, and should not be engaged haphazardly or on a whim. Since dialogue often includes contentious issues, emotions can run high and, if not managed properly, can derail the endeavor making matters worse.  Dialogue participants must understand that their ideas, emotions, beliefs and interests will be challenged, not for ridicule, but for understanding. They should not see Dialogue as an opportunity to convince others and “win” the argument, but rather to understand perspectives and recognize obstacles. Cynicism may pop up, and it must be properly managed to minimize its impact.  Participants must realize that Disagreement is required, but Division is not. They must also be flexible with their positions, consider suggestions, and allow for personal change (albeit not instant). And they must treat others with respect and maintain civility. But first, they need to meet, in-person, and in safe spaces. Using “out-person” conduits, such as social media and the Internet, we further our division by communicating to each other, not with each other. As a result, we focus on that we disagree, and ignore how we do so.  In-person Dialogue aims not to eliminate disagreement, but to enhance how we understand, learn from, and overcome our differences so that they won’t divide us.  Intense, critical, curious and civil discussions over a pint of craft beer just may save America. If dialogue participants disagree on everything else, at least they can agree on having a locally brewed, delicious beer. From there, once a commonality is recognized, anything can happen. More commonalities emerge and problem solving begins. Once again, America looks to local breweries to begin its (re)unification.To help spark the dialogue movement, we have created the Pub Dialogues in the Denver metro area. This somewhat monthly event has garnered large and small crowds, but after each session participants cheer the event. Many admit that they anticipated shouting matches and didn't know they could actually talk to "opponents". We applaud their openness and flexibility to experiment with face-to-face dialogue. Every "side" is allowed to speak uninterrupted.  Participants gain insight to others and better understand various perspectives. Perhaps the biggest benefit is that they experienced civil dialogue; that they can get past disagreement and onto problem solving. And that is the primary goal of the Pub Dialogues; to help people recognize that people can resolve issues among themselves and not rely on social media, presidential debates and cynicism.

---

 

Post Election: Now What?

Ok, the election is over. Now what? This is a great time to consider what this country should become and it starts with you.Roughly 120,000,000 people voted: Trump won the electoral race, Clinton the popular vote. Clearly, America is divided. What we do next, as “winners” and “losers”, can help heal this country, or drive it deeper into the abyss. And Americans share more interests than we think.For Trump supporters: Here is a great chance to start the healing and rebuilding to make America greater. You have about 60,000,000 people who are devastated, sad, scared and disillusioned. They are not wrong. What do you do? The easy thing is to gloat and kick them when they’re down, but that’s unpatriotic. It’s un-American. Americans pick each other up after a defeat. They teach and learn from each other. They sympathize and, if possible, empathize with their fellow citizens. They move forward, leaving no one behind.For Clinton supporters: It was not an evil conspiracy. There are about 60,000,000 people who felt disenfranchised, lied to, betrayed and threatened. They are not wrong. You have a choice: to work with the new president, or expend energy opposing everything. The current Congress chose the latter, angering many and stalling this country. Cooperating won’t be easy, which is why it must be done. You have four years to work this out and take the high road.Some quick tips:

• When disagreements arise, let’s understand the situation and focus on substantive issues
• Abandon the personal attacks and superficial jabs.
• Restrain from saying, “you’re wrong”, because what you’re really saying is “I’m right” and “me being right is more important than whatever we’re talking about”
• Use “I” statements. “I feel this policy is bad because….”. Or, “I think the best course of action is…”
• Listen. This sounds easy, but it can be difficult. The goal is twofold: to understand what the other person is saying, and to signal to them that yes, you are listening. Reframing is a good way to accomplish this: “If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying….” It’s not repeating what they say, but putting it your own words. If they say, “no, that’s not what I said” then ask them to explain it
• Dialogue, not debate. Debate is used to determine a winner in an argument, not to find the truth or seek solutions. Dialogue is an effort to understand a situation and develop solutions. Again, this can be difficult, which is why it must be done

You may feel like you have won or lost the election. You didn’t. For a vast majority of us, we didn’t win or lose anything; we aren't moving into the White House. On top of that, each candidate will forget about you soon, if not already. It’s up to you. It’s up to us. Take back the power politicians have used to manipulate us and how we treat each other. We all want the same things: security, family, health and shelter, but differ on how we attain them.  Don’t let politicians and “elites” use these differences to drive us apart. That’s not the American way.Cheers and Beers!

Craft Beer and Syrian Refugees

Refugees and Craft Beer

The Brewers Association article on craft brewing’s charitable donations highlights how involved craft breweries are in their communities.  They donate money to various charities as well as providing product and space to others. They create and promote fundraising events and raise awareness to many causes. They even raise money to help employees, customers and strangers manage medical expenses and see them through tough times.  To many of us beer geeks this is not surprising, but the total amount, $71 Million, is phenomenal and that does not include the time and energy breweries put forth to achieve this number.The article also highlights the potential for what craft breweries can do for their community and beyond, in ways not reflected in dollars. Venues such as craft breweries, tap houses and tap rooms attract people from various and differing backgrounds and opposing perspectives. Yet, they all share a common interest: good beer. This interest can serve as the cornerstone for important, perhaps contentious, dialogue. And through dialogue difficult social, political, religious and community issues can be effectively addressed. It is not easy, but nothing worthwhile is. Such venues can cultivate a spirit of open and honest conversation, and provide a safe and open atmosphere to encourage people to discuss contentious issues without fear of backlash and ridicule. It is a way to help a community gather resources and information to effectively address certain issues and guard against hastily made decisions, which usually end up exasperating the original issue.Let’s take the Syrian refugee crisis as an example--quite the contentious topic with short-, medium-, and long-term implications. It requires in-depth conversation from multiple viewpoints in order to effectively address challenges it presents, separate emotional responses and practical measures, and remove political influence.  Certainly not an easy task.Yet, it is possible for people from all sides of an issue to converse in a civil manner. To discuss what upsets them. To listen to what upsets others, why certain things upset themselves, and to collectively better understand such complex situations. Are the refugees a threat to security? Are they just people who need help? Which is correct? Or are they both correct? Or both wrong, and there's another possibility?  This cannot be discovered through Facebook, Twitter or comment threads online. It must be done in person. Getting opposite viewpoints in the same room is challenging, though.  “Come on down and talk with someone who disagrees with you” is not an appealing invitation. But craft beer is. Having a discussion over a pint is much more attractive than having a contentious discussion.And such discussions are germane to discovery of effective solutions. Surface level questions lead to deeper inquiry that probe for more complete information.  Are Syrian refugees harmless? Why or why not? What is the refugee acceptance process? Does it include placement and monitoring? What is to gain from accepting a refugee population? These are important questions to ask and to answer, but they aren't the only ones. Questions can counter conclusions people already hold, and challenging them can make them defensive, annoyed, dismissive or even angry. Yet a society benefits from having uncomfortable conversations.  Of course alcohol can inhibit control over emotions, and nothing can get emotions boiling like politics and social issues, which can increase the likelihood of shouting and name-calling.  This can happen anyway in tap houses and tap rooms, but what a venue can do is institute a public dialogue program that brings in professional facilitators to manage emotions and keep conversation on track and safe.Much like during the Colonial days, breweries and other craft beer venues could be the place in a community for public discussion on important topics, like the Syrian refugee crisis, and get away from pointless social media banter. Public dialogue is no easy task and should not be undertaken lightly. But the power of public dialogue, when harnessed, can provide enormous benefits to the brewery, tap house, community and the larger society. Real world problems addressed, understood and resolved in the real world, not cyberspace. Maybe we can call it "Craft Conversations".For more information about models of public dialogue, please contact Jason. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Making the choice between your friend and your politician

The presidential debates are looming, and many of us need to be reminded how to avoid turning our friends into enemies. The tips below will help you maintain sanity during the political season and avoid the need to choose between your friends and your candidates.

1. Remember every issue has many viewpoints; strive to understand them.
2. Listen to what is meant and how you are receiving it rather than how it is stated.
3. Ask questions to clarify meanings.
4. Focus on the issues, not the person.
5. Be respectful; no name-calling.
6. Ask yourself whether you have all of the facts. Be open-minded and willing to learn.
7. Keep the doors open to areas of common agreement and new ideas.
8. Practice patience.

The key to working through all types of disagreements is to strive toward understanding the other person’s perspective. If you understand where they’re coming from and why they believe what they do, then they are more likely to act in kind and recognize your opinion on the issue.Remember that, unless you destroy the relationship now, your friends will be around long after your candidate’s term has ended. Also, be sure to consider how boring the world would be if we all agreed on everything.If you want more information, read about our efforts to encourage productive conversations through Pub Dialogues. 

Pub Dialogues: Session 1.1

The second session of The Pub Dialogues series was held at Vine Street Pub on March 20th, 2012 (the first day of Spring!), from 6-9pm, in the annex room (Harry's).For this session we selected the topic "The State of Education".  On the presidential campaign trail the phrase 'education reform' has been uttered quite a bit.  Not much, however, has been discussed to clarify the term, what sort of reform, or even why reform seems necessary. We thought about "education reform" for this session's topic, however we felt that this is too directive--to talk only about reform when, perhaps, some people may not agree with reform and have other thoughts concerning education.  To be sure, reform was certainly open to conversation in this session, we just wished not to force it.We had a great time at Vine Street. People discussed topics within education from testing/exam philosophies and approaches, to school funding, to differences between standardization and standardized .  At the end of the formal session attendees were open to mingle and socialize, making new friends and continuing the discussions from the smaller groups.On tap were many delicious beers and Mountain Sun's famous Hop Vivant Imperial IPA made an appearance.