The OpenACS project decides and/or nominates and/or elects its representatives to the .LRN Technical Advisory Board
The OpenACS project itself isn't democratic (who elected you to be the driver for the 4.6 and 4.7 releases?), it's more a meritocracy.
Eventually something more formal and more democratic should evolve, perhaps along the Apache Model. Personally I don't think today's the day, though.
Aa far as your list goes you're saying "the OpenACS gatekeepers should be the Technical Advisory Board for dotLRN". I don't expect the list to be 1:1 as you propose but I do expect people from that list to be asked to join the TAB.
As far as the OpenACS project and dotLRN project being separate, that's easy to state. They are separate so, sure, we'll tell you they're separate. No one has ever said anything to the contrary.
I still think you owe Al a personal apology for suggesting that MIT's blueprint for governance of dotLRN is a masked attempt to enslave the OpenACS project.
