Al,
Like others, I disagree with your statement:
".LRN should not be viewed as something built on top of OpenACS. Instead, .LRN should be a subset of OpenACS. I realize that this is currently not the case, but we should move quickly in this direction."
Don gave the example of PLone/Zope. You can also think about our competitors: BEA/WebCT (on WebCT vista). I think the model of having a vertical application works pretty well, and is easily understood by CIOs.
Regarding marketing and project names I wouldn't mind changing the name of OpenACS together with the dog. Every single marketing type person (and commons as well) have said that the name is not clear, not catchy, etc.
I have noticed quite a lot of activity recently, much more than I have seen in the last few months. This might be a risk or an opportunity to make big changes. Part of it might be due to the humungus thread started by Al. Those titles he uses call everyones attention!. Regretably I agree with Don and it is risky if some external person reads it... worse if they know who is Al.
cheers
rafael
