W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Discussion meta-comment

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA827F1.9020705@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 4/15/11 4:58 AM, Keith Alexander wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Hugh Glaser<hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am looking at the process and outcomes I observe, rather than delving into the details.
>> It is not about whether people could have acted differently - it is about how people actually did act.
>> A lost opportunity? Clearly there were a number of people who had opinions, and seemed ready to engage in a discussion. I would have been interested to hear what they had to say. But the social dynamics (in my opinion) were such that they no longer chose to contribute.
>> In answer to your last question: Because the discussion then becomes about the page, rather than principle, or even original topic; but I begin to repeat myself.
>> Best
>> Hugh
> +1
> I had the same impression. The thread started off well, but diverged
> and became acrimonious and I for one was put off following it because
> of that.
> Keith

If acrimonious is your point, then yes. +1000 .

Healthy debate doesn't have to be acrimonious. In my world debates are a 
mechanism for building rather than burning bridges :-)



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 11:12:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:13 UTC