Forum .LRN Q&A: Response to Request for Comment: dotLRN Technology Governance

Thoughts of an heretofore noncontributing, bumbling OpenACS fanatic..

Talli's right. To the extend that dotLRN is not opensource, its management is directed by immediate organizational (operational) needs and therefore this discussion (in an opensource forum) could be deemed irrelevant in the context of the opensource community. The project could have it's own directives, funding etc. and exist harmoniously with the openacs community whether's its run by a benevolent dictator, Roman style congress etc.

Is there wisdom in trying to create a religious, formal organization around an event or manifestation of opensource resources?  Religious wars come to mind... We might be evangelists... hopefully not blind separatists with OpenACS and dotLRN vying to go different ways.

Is this thread related to an identity boundary problem?

My first impression of the documents suggests there is an underlying attempt to govern the opensource development. The spirit of the cooperative opensource culture becomes limited when governed or directed by organizational directives (based on thought and needs alone). Organizations tend to quash creative inspiration for example.

For the spirit of cooperation to prevail, any organizational involvement needs to be supportive to the community --not the other way around. An organizational structure needs to consider the social, economic and functional impact in the existing and evolving environment. I believe the authors of the documents are trying to create a supportive organization --but there are many traps in that paradigm.

Does one organization need to be *the* representative for grants, financing etc developing this learning system?  Should cooperation be constrained to international ventures (with organizations formed in other countries) only? Legally, an organization could be formed with the same purpose in any other country...  This community is more dynamic than what can be supported by any single organization. Still we know that an organization can play a supportive role in this community --they have. The Sloan/MIT/dotLRN project has many internal objectives that are shared with the community, and DotLRN has a leading role in OpenACS development.

However the organization is formed, I'm certain the experience will be positive as long as the underlying principles that foster an opensource community remain.

So why ask the community for comments? Is it to gain a consensus on what would be most accepted by the community? or is it that the community has a diverse perspective --creativity is one of its resources-- thereby helping organizers to think outside of the organizational box?

I would like to know more of the requirements (and motives) behind the strategy on these structural/operational outlines before commenting further.

Isn't Aduni.org's objectives similar? Why not use Aduni as a launching platform?

It may be days before I get another chance to reply. This message is written with goodwill to all, and a sincere interest in positive outcomes for everyone... best wishes, Torben