Thank you, Al. I can see that anyone reading my post would come to the conclusion that I'm proposing a large increase in funding by the .LRN entities, such as MIT, but in fact I'm not. When I speak of a "large budget" and "substantial membership fees", this says more about my awe and respect for any sum exceeding a few bucks than the actual amount of money I'm referring to itself. The sums I'm imagining surely aren't bigger than those you handle already; they're probably smaller. What I call for is actually not more money but faster money, because pennies are like stones - they really only rock when they roll.
The way I see it, membership fees would actually reduce costs and risks for the paying members, as they jointly invest in R&D through the consortium. For those .LRN patrons who do most of the investing in the toolkit today, such as MIT, this would almost certainly be the case. But even if we give up the idea of (not-so-substantial) membership fees, with the more equal and fair investment they entail, it would still be a good idea if all investing in the toolkit itself were to be channeled through the consortium. No matter how its budget is collected or how big this budget is, the consortium would be the buyer of .LRN R&D.
Just like the toolkit producers have their OCT, the toolkit consumers would be equally strengthened by having an interest group of their own - the consortium - forming. The partnership we would all benefit the most from, Al, is perhaps that between those two toolkit promoters. The OpenACS community, encompassing both the producers and the consumers, would then appear more as a well-conducted concert than as a chaotic collection of artists desperately tooting their own horns. We need to start conducting ourselves as an orchestra before people resort to sax and violins...
Seriously, I believe that our community has some sort of pre- or post-modern corporate identity, where the community is thought of as a body and the toolkit producers and consumers essentially acknowledge their common interests and work together. We're too small for unregulated competition to work and must focus on cooperation. That's why I believe in a consortium that is a patron, actively looking after the well being of the producers. The organizational structure of the community and the business model must reflect our true nature if we're going to be really successful, I figure.
Anyway, I'm very pleased that you appreciate the importance of small projects/grants.
