Thanks Carl for the good news and I completely agree with your way of thinking. Maybe I voiced too much the devil's advocate for you to assume I'd like Ben's solution or none at all 😊.
Some things Al might consider changing in the proposal:
".LRN governance will be defined by the .LRN Executive Board, to be named initially by MIT."
Change to:
".LRN governance will be defined by the .LRN Executive Board, to be named initially by the current stakeholders of the .LRN project"
" .LRN kernel: data model, scripts, templates, and general functionality related to club and class management, portal management, applet API. "
to ".LRN kernel: data model, scripts, templates, and general functionality related to club and class management, portal management, applet API unless maintained by the current OpenACS distribution"
And last but not least, the community of OpenACS along with all it's stakeholders should think about adopting the proposal in general for OpenACS. Which leads to my last addition:
"In case of an OpenACS Executive and Technical Advisory Board existing, the dotLRN TAB will make every (commercially/educationally/whatever 😊) reasonable effort to prevent a fork or split of the dotLRN code"
