Well, look, I fully backed having .LRN pay Dan Wickstrom to look into uPortal integration a year or more ago and I said I support such integration above (I don't know if anything came of discussions with Wickstrom or not).
And I've always supported efforts to integrate support for various interoperability APIs - remember SOAP? webDAV? RSS?
I'm not arguing against API integration where it makes sense.
But is that all it really takes to supply a complete Sakai-compatible application? If so, I'll STFU ... we probably integrate with their superior plumbing with far fewer than 20 full-time developers.
"You can wipe the spittle from the corner of your mouth now."
Pardon me for assuming you think I'm stupid and blind, rather than rabid.
I'm mainly annoyed at you because, as I've said twice, marketing/positioning discussions regarding .LRN should be addressed to the people who make those decisions.
They get to decide how they want to position .LRN and they have the responsibility of achieving funding to achieve those goals, both in the technical and marketing realm.
I have no problem with sound marketing decisions driving the technical direction of .LRN, and of course in every instance our goal is to fully integrate anything done for .LRN into OpenACS proper. If .LRN drives further efforts towards interoperability, great. If we had effective marketing of OpenACS proper (as opposed to effective sales to individual clients), I'd feel the same way. That's why I thanked you for your excellent summary regarding Apache.
I must say it is a bit annoying to have you, after a very long absence, jump in and say, in essence, "this is what OpenACS must do to succeed" in a tone that is somewhat lecturing, to say the least.
