- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:45 -0400
- 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 > > 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 :-) -- Regards, 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