Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Why we should dissolve the .LRN consortium

Posted by Carl Robert Blesius on
.LRN (the consortium) should not (and will not) be dissolved (without some MAJOR arm twisting).
.LRN should be just another OpenACS configuration option (and we still have some serious work to do to make that happen).
.LRN should support a push for a general OpenACS installer (in which .LRN is just another configuration option).
.LRN and OpenACS should make it a point to share as much focus, direction, and discipline as possible.
.LRN should continue to promote the adoption of OpenACS (especially when adding .LRN specific applications will just be a few clicks away on the APM install web page).
.LRN and OpenACS share the same community (right now), but that will not always be the case.

The goals behind .LRN and OpenACS are similar but different.
.LRN's strength is OpenACS.
There are advantages to having a .LRN brand that we have just begun to build on.

If this is more than just a socratic question Al you should TIP it (a suggestion Don just made to me that I like): which should keep this discussion short. ;) I am going to go have another beer.

The last comment I want to post here about the OpenACS brand has to do with one of Roc's posts in your last thread (a very motivating one btw): I am starting to get sick of that "gay dog" too... especially since he is no longer helping (and OpenACS has outgrown him).