I recently joined a Yahoo Group rather reluctantly in order to facilitate, let's say company business. The idea is that 20 odd members can gather in this group and hash out ideas for presentation to a larger group eventually. The group was set up by a member who established and joined it before he/she was even appointed to the group. Pretentious for sure, but nothing to be particularly alarmed about. Apparently the group rules can provide for privacy and thus the members are assured of such privacy. In my opinion, any time you have more than three people in such a group, privacy is virtually impossible anyway. 
The greater question becomes, that once rules of the game are established, is it the loudest and most persistent that win the day ? This has often been the criticism leveled at New England democracy over the years. As someone who lives within that tradition, I see it all the time. There always seems to be a retiree or advocate who has infinite time in order to press their agenda, while reasonable, intelligent people are left with the decision to risk time loss on an item they may not agree with, but will ultimately take less time or life away, even if passed or allowed by the gathered citizen representatives. What results, quite often, is an emboldened activist or cause because so few have indeed expressed their opposition or resistance. In so many ways this is why our gentle liberty roots have failed so often in the last century. Thus incremental change and creeping authoritarianism creates it own legitimacy within the group dynamic.