another comment on the continued references to the apache foundation. they are apples and oranges. The members of the apache governing bodies are the soul of that community, having intimate knowledge and experience as developers of the code base. the apache foundation members arose from their skill and contributions to the community as *developers*.
Kapil, the key parallels between Apache and the MIT proposal are that both have formal governance structures, both are ultimately self-governed (remember that MIT does not propose to run the Executive Committee for the long-term), and both are made up of not just developers, but users of the platform. With Apache, the developers and users happen to be largely one and the same. That's not the case with dotLRN, so MIT is making an effort to broaden the mix.
Why? Again, I'll let Al speak for himself on this, but again, there is a simple, logical explanation based on his comments so far in this thread. Al has said that when an institution invests in Open Source, it's real investment is in the community. If MIT fails to get other institutions to adopt dotLRN, then it effectively becomes a custom development project. Al has already said in this thread that custom development is a bad investment for him. So MIT has a reason to "sell" dotLRN, meaning convince other organizations to adopt it.
And really, if dotLRN doesn't take off and get used by others, what's the point of doing it in the first place? What's the point of making it Open Source? The best reason possible to "sell" dotLRN is that it has the potential to offer the real quality online educational software (a rare commodity at best) to all educational organizations, regardless of their ability to pay.
The point is, none of that will happen if nobody is interested in adopting the software. If you build it, they won't necessarily come. Now, if *they* build it *with* you, that's another story. And that's the whole rationale behind a formal governance structure with a broad range of stakeholders.
