This all makes perfect sense as long as we're talking about adopters who are doing this because they believe in the benefits of Open Source. Though let's not forget that the core is actually OpenACS, not dotLRN, and the Consortium has limited influence there.
However, it is my understanding that we are trying to take dotLRN out into the world at large and convince institutions to use it who might have otherwise purchased a commercial package. These folks don't care a bit about collaborative development; in fact they will often regard it with suspicion. The only reason for them to choose dotLRN is that they can make it work *exactly* the way they want it to, and they can put the money they would have spent on a commercial software license into building their own modules instead.
These folks are not going to be interested in following an open development model. They may be willing to contribute the finished code, and I believe it would be valuable for the community as a whole for them to do so, but often they will only do it if they feel they are going to retain some influence over it.
To take this point even further, I believe it will discourage adoption of dotLRN in these institutions if there is an implication that to be good community citizens they *have* to develop collaboratively.
As I said before, I don't know what the final answer is. I just find myself being concerned about the direction things are going, based on my experiences with clients and potential clients who had these concerns, and I wanted to mention them. It is, as you said, ultimately up to the Consortium to decide how these issues should be handled.
