- From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:06:31 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 04:31:02PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > I can't remember what this started out as, but both "leaders" and > "leadership" will probably be understood as "library directors and > other management types." If we want it to mean "thought leaders" or > "technology leaders" then we'll need those adjectives to be there. > IMO. The context was: Tom suggested: >> BTW, we have headings for bodies, participants, designers, librarians, >> archivists, and... leadership. Shouldn't that be "For library leaders"? To which Antoine replied: > Unless there's a strong argument against, I prefer to keep it like this. > "leaders" has a strong connotation to me, which is less obvious in > "leadership". A bit as if "leadership" was leaving more room for people who are > not formal leaders (library director, department heads) to step in and battle > for moving things forwards at a higher-level. But maybe that's just me. In other words, I was suggesting "For library leaders" (instead of "leadership") for consistency with the other section headings, and Antoine was preferring "leadership" -- for the reason, however, that to him, this term seemed more inclusive of people who exercise leadership at levels lower than library director and department head. Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 00:07:11 UTC