- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:23:20 -0700
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
I'm with Antoine on "leadership" as more inclusive. -- kc Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>: > 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> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 15:24:00 UTC