I have written and published on my blog, on Scribd, and on academia.edu, over a hundred pages (e.g. this 49 page article) summarising my reactions to the AIME project. I have received nothing at all in reply. One of its rewriters actually told me he was too busy rewriting the « report » to reply to objections, when the whole idea of the book and of its « rewrite », so it is said, is to provoke and to take into consideration « protestations ». The « rewrite » thus should concern dissenting contributions or it is a lure. Or it is just business as usual comprising well-known allies such as Isabelle Stengers, Kyle McGee, and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro as officially accepted « contradictors ». Plus a few sceptical academics with tenure and the right publications, to show that one is « open » after all.
The correct reply to such invocations of democracy is to say: prove to us that you are diplomatic: don’t make us wait one or two years to see a « rewrite » that may or may not take into account our objections. We are sick of the attitude « don’t call me, I’ll call you » when we are addressed, if we are lucky enough to get a response, by a « diplomat » that we have certainly not elected and whose accountability is obscure.
I have done a lot of work on Bruno Latour over the last three years on my blog, and I have yet to see any « diplomatic » non-élitist, non-snob reaction from this population of Latourian workers.