Lars asks:
"This touches on an issue of what exactly people think that .LRN should mean. How big is the .LRN part of .LRN, and how big is OpenACS. Right now, there's a lot of code in the .LRN repository that I hope belongs to OpenACS, such as the portals, the portal wrappers around all the applications (forums, file-storage, etc.), the whole group/community framework, etc. All of that is, from my perspective, so fundamental to a collaboration software toolkit, which is what I view OpenACS as being, that it belongs there. That leaves a relatively minor list of things, such as a homework drop-box, administrative pages for setting up departments, subjects, classes, etc. for .LRN. Plus, and that's what I find the important part, whatever variations are needed in how functionality is presented is needed in the educational environment."
-
How would this type of question be resolved in our governance model? For the most part not any differently than it would be resolved now.
-
Who would decide? The gatekeepers, members of TAB, and the OpenACS community.
-
Who might these be? People like Ben, Don, Lars, etc. The Executive Board has nothing contribute, nor should it, to these types of technology decisions.
-
What then would be different from the current process? Well, for one, the User Advisory Board needs to consider this also if this is a serious proposal. For example, what impact would this change have on the existing user base? Will this be a costly upgrade?
