What I would say is that I found the experience very enjoyable, which is always a bonus, but it was also interesting, provocative and stimulating….I think it clarified the idea that whether or not “openness” is a good thing (and the Open Sauce boys clearly think it is) it is a fact of life and the sooner people get used to that, the better. That there are loads more opportunities than threats with openness. That it is worth experimenting with it, even if you are wary. That you meet interesting people that you wouldn’t necessarily meet if you just sat in your office all day. And that there’s no need to have an agenda to get value out of a meeting.
I suspect that to an extent Johnnie and James were preaching to the converted with me and I was always going to buy into it. It would be interesting to know what sort of impact it would have on a number-cruncher. The sort of person who expects a return on their investment out of a seminar.
Mark really seemed to enjoy what we had to say and has some very interesting perspectives on the law, which I think will emerge in his blog over time.
But, oh, those number-crunchers. I have this pet theory that they are a bit like the Undertoad from The World According to Garp. (The youngest child, Walt, worries about an undertoad because he mishears the warning to beware the undertow while playing in the surf). I keep hearing about these Gradgrind-like number crunchers, but I’ve never actually met one. I do sometimes meet accountants and finance directors who mostly seem rather keen not to be misunderstood as nay-sayers with no human feeling
It’s my policy to point this out everytime number-crunchers are invoked as I am coming to suspect they are a figment of our imaginations.