I suppose I ought to write about yesterday's meeting. (It was a bit overshadowed by events in the rest of the day).

I'd written a couple of reports over a month ago about why we blog and our Web 2.0 activities. The former because certain colleagues think what we do is a bit surreal, pointless or a waste of time; and the latter because I was asked to justify a Facebook page, Twitter, the blog (again) and account for time spent on working with them.

In quite short order I produced a three page report with another page of references supporting the work and a 9 page report with a page of references (and a five page appendix of our tweets just for good measure!) only to have them held over not just one meeting, but a second. I had my revenge by revising them in the intervening time with more ideas and argument and references. I think they finally made sure the agenda included them before they got any longer!

Surprisingly - after all that - and expecting something of a debate the reception was quite positive. In fact a couple of voices suggested we didn't spend *enough* time on Web 2.0 activities. One naysayer expressed a couple of opinions which were fair enough but one of the biggest critics (in a couple of senses), who's loudly proclaimed he doesn't know why we keep our blog up and doesn't get it; who's boasted about not having read my explanation; chose to absent himself from the meeting. He may have had good reasons but if I hear any "anti"-ness again, I won't let it slide!

Best encouragement was Head (and chair) suggesting the work should be published. (I'd thought of that but wasn't sure if some of the content was a bit sensitive. So it was nice to hear that unprompted.) Of course it means more work!