Doesn't .LRN represent the effort of a specific group users? Shouldn't the consortium do everything in their power to identify, coordinated and establish the needs of users? Shouldn't whatever the UAB comes up with have the highest priority? What is needed to make sure this actually and consistently happens? I'ld say be a user (and manager) and have the TAB worry about the implementation. Dissolve the .LRN consortium if there are no users. To coordinate efforts around LORS is important but how would the users translate this need? How to fullfil the needs of the users is what the consortium should be after, IMO.
Listen to how Bruce talks ( https://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=273318 ) and write the specs along the lines of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html
( http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.88829.23
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.48094.10
)
One of the needs may be to have bug-"free" software. This could eventually translate into ".LRN certified without bugs" or assigning a "24-hour bug-master" or something like that.
All in all, gather the academic users (possibly in a private forum like Sakai does; if only for the "googling side-effect"), make them complain AND applaud, make the roadmap and define the process how goals can be reached. The goal of .LRN would be to create happy users, not flawless software. Support the users is my gut feeling.
