I think if Paul had been present at the session he would actually have appreciated what Conor had to say. Objectivity and realism in sizing up deployment blockers, and transparency in setting expectations, is what will lead to success.
A couple of points in my defense:
- Conor and I have a long established tradition of casting aspersions on each other. When I think of my involvement with Liberty, I divide it 2 periods – that initial period during which I was too intimidated by Conor's expertise and strongly voiced opinions to challenge him, and then the last couple of weeks.
- As quoted by Phil, Conor's statement about non-enterprise deployments could be misinterpreted. Conor doesn't blog so I thought I would give him an opportunity to clarify/expand by commenting on a post of mine. I chose sarcasm and satire in order to goad him over the pain barrier of making such a comment.
- This was part of a new marketing campaign by Liberty to put a more human face on the organization. New logo soon.
- The end result of an individual so strongly linked with Microsoft's identity strategy defending a Liberty-proponent (rather than laughing with delight over what might appear to be LAP-internal squabbling) and what this might imply for the future (or even just for the sake of irony) must surely justify some small artistic excess in my original post?
I'll be seeing Conor at a Liberty meeting in Washington tomorrow. Can't wait.
Actually, I'm the last person who would want to stop good natured banter between friends – or others.
Along that line, I guess Paul's point 3) above meansI fell for yet more marketing gloop?
Well, I can console myself with the realization that I've fallen for worse things in my life. Anyway, getting the identity conversation as close as possible to reality is a good thing.
In terms of laughing with delight at the squabling of others, I see you Liberty folks as allies in getting an identity metasystem done. That's just where the dynamics of virtual reality will lead us.