Hello Al, maybe I read your comment wrong {OpenACS version1 is SloanSpace version2}, but until very recently OpenACS has evolved quite nicely without SloanSpace contributing to the effort. And I don't think it should be viewed like OpenACS is a by product of Sloanspace in the future.
As for the business implications, yes, definitly go with a consortium to adhere standards (though not necessarily technical ones, see above statement). We might even thing about this body releasing certification tests to accredit companies of beeing capable of installing dotLRN. But again the question: Why only dotLRN, why not OpenACS?
If MIT wants to control the brand and the way the community deals with it, that is fine. If some stakeholders want to use this stronghold along with a governance body to influence the communities direction, that's a different issue.
My suggestion: Restrict the dotLRN governance body to the level demanded by potential clients. That is limit it to quality assurance and adherence to standards in the educational area (after all, dotLRN is focusing on education and as long as MIT does not want to launch dotWRK...) and using of the brand. And make sure we have something like it for OpenACS as a whole along with a technical board (which can be the gatekeeper structure we have at the moment). I mean, potential clients of OpenACS have the same concerns.
Last but not least, it is a misconception that OpenACS is build only by developers. It was taken from the code developed by AD which was taken from the code developed for their clients. Most of the things we see within OpenACS are client driven, they have given us specs, things they need, modules they want to USE. The clients have been deciding about the functionality and how modules should behave. The developers decide how to make this happen. Keep it this way.
P.S.: I think everyone has a right to comment on this after it has been brought out into the open by Al and Ben in his/her own way. But you should keep personal attacks out of it. And see this as a chance to have something evolve that is not already there and be greateful for Al and Ben to give us the possibility to participate in the process and submit our ideas. That is taking for granted, that both Al and Ben are willing to make amendments to their proposal 😊.
