Disagreeing without being disagreeable is an art, and unfortunately one that a number of people on BikeForums and in the general population are not all that proficient in, so it would seem. Ideally, one should be able to tell someone else to go to heck when needed, but in a manner that has them looking forward to the journey.

When I chaired my technical committee on US bicycle facility traffic control for 15 years, my rule #1 for members and guests was "play well with others" (although the committee product was a lot of hard-earned work). As far as I was concerned, a person could be a galactic-class expert in their areas of knowledge, but if they couldn't work productively with others who might not always share those opinions, then I didn't want them on the TC, and the Board would back me up. I actively recruited members from a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints in the cycling field, as long as they were knowledgeable in traffic control for bicyclists and could respond to challenges objectively and productively. And I think it's still one of the few groups that has this useful range of opinions, as nearly all others in the area of US cycling technical oversight have purged diverse viewpoints to create a "community consensus". I ended up losing my position representing a national cycling organization on the voting oversight body because I wouldn't immediately terminate the memberships of the people "standing in the way of progress", when in reality better and more informed progress was made by including them. When I stepped down as chair, my succeeding chair worked hard to maintain that balance of viewpoints. There is now another committee chair, and it remains to be seen if he will continue to support diversity of opinions or just go along with activist-driven "consensus".