Just a quick clarification. I did not want to imply that MIT should provide the governance for OpenACS. That was a suggestion for the community to take and make, not MIT 😊.
Concerning the shots: By releasing dotLRN in the open under GPL MIT has already lost most of the bullets. Their only bullet left is labeled dotLRN (TM). Noone could stop Ben, Don, Michael and Caroline to setup a body governing the future development of the product formerly known as dotLRN without involvement from MIT {though I doubt it is wise...}. So yes, I am thankful for Al to have opened up the discussion. And I add this is a very clever and strategically necessary move. But it is not necessary to thank MIT more than e.g. AD or Greenpeace or any other organization who bought an OpenACS site. And neither of these came up with the idea of a governance body just for their own product (aka special version of website).
