FWIW, I think the only way to productively move
portable.nsd forward is for someone with _specific_
requirements to underwrite it.
I think John nails it here, assuming such a client exists. It seems like most of the discussion is not so much about whether we'd like to integrate, but rather the conditions under which to undertake the effort.
If running as a mod_* has value, someone ought to be willing to pay for it. Having the consortium pay for it as a purely research effort is less than ideal, imo. In the best case there would be a client driving the project with specific requirements and a specific timetable.
Perhaps the consortium's role is to help identify such a client and provide some level of funding. "You like .LRN. Your IT folks say it must run under Apache. It can. We'll help."
Incidentally, and without discounting the valid marketing points about Apache/uPortal/etc, we mustn't forget the value of competing on features. In addition to asking "how can we get people who require Apache to adopt our software?", we should always be asking, "how can we make our software so compelling that they're willing to overlook the mechanical details?"
