There are some mythologies that we need to get past. I am quickly learning that in discussions of opensource there are many.
<p>
Ben writes: "Given that we're discussing a product (dotLRN) that has come out of this very OpenACS process and is considered, to date, fairly promising, it makes sense to set up a minimalist governing body to mimic this initial success."
<p>
Given the premise, the conclusion is plausible. The myth is that dotLRN originated fully formed, much like Aphrodite, from the brilliance and technical foam of OpenACS developers. Let me remind everyone of the facts. OpenACS version1 is SloanSpace version2. SloanSpace v1 was developed and evolved as a collaboration between users, developers, and people like Caroline Meeks and Michael Feldstein who know how to interpret and articulate user needs. I remember one innovation that Michael suggested and we ultimately implemented that made a huge difference in an Executive Education course offering for Merrill Lynch. SloanSpace and, therefore, dotLRN would not be possible without users and user experts such as Caroline and Michael. Our ability to add new features incrementally based on input from students, faculty, staff, and alumni was the decisive reason for SloanSpace's success.
<p>
I want to give recognition to developers and the technical community that has built OpenACS and dotLRN. But let's not perpetuate this mythology that a vertical application can be successfully built and made to evolve entirely by developers.
