Forum .LRN Q&A: Response to Request for Comment: dotLRN Technology Governance

Hmm, and I was always under the impression that dotLRN is "only" a large package / application running on top of OpenACS, specificly useful for education. But reading both papers I think it is something completely seperate, an entity of its own, with some ties to OpenACS.

What happens, if OpenACS 4.7 comes out and some packages have been improved over the dotLRN version. So OACS is not dotLRN compliant anymore? What is dotLRN anyway, in contrast to OpenACS? Why do we need a governing body for the one and cannot use it for the other?

If we install a version of dotLRN at a university, modify the code to suit their needs, can we say, they run dotLRN, the plattform developed by MIT, or shall we say the use OpenACS with a package for education, originally developed by MIT and modified to their use?

Marketing works both ways. The more people use dotLRN and brag about it, the more reknown the project will be as a whole.

Some more ideas: What if Greenpeace starts to market GreenCMS, the peaceful CMS for bridging the digital divide. Shall they get a governance body as well? How about our Communication and Knowledge Capturing Suite build on top of OpenACS (continue breathing, thats future).

Okay, now don't get me wrong. I am in favour of a Governance Body, and I see the use in particular for dotLRN. But the reasons are different. The Governance Body should not concern itself with TECHNOLOGY issues. That should be left to the OpenACS community and its mechanisms (which might include a Governance Body). But what is more important in my opinion is that anything which makes it into dotLRN and wants to get approved for using this name, should adhere to the EDUCATIONAL standards set forth.

A scenario I envision: The TAB decides that CR sucks big time and they endorse a replacement for it, making the current CR obsolete for dotLRN use. But OpenACS does not follow through. What happens then? Don't fork!!! We had this a couple of years ago, Don, Ben, Adam and myself sitting in an office in Boston Prospect Street. Don't want to see this happen again for whatever reason. But what is the alternative. If the TAB decides something, wouldn't that be like a pistol saying, eat, or fork ?

If I look at the Linux kernel, we have the standard distribution, and the AC (Cox) patches. But here the governance body is with the standard distribution.

Choosing between the two options presented (taking in account that you want to go ahead anyway and that there is actually not much of a direct implication for the rest of us), I'd go for Al's aproach as this resembles a more coordinated approach.

Last but not least, let me stress again the brand issue. dotLRN is owned by MIT as a brand, same as Linux is owned by Linus. It must be clear, that the use of the brand is allowed, as long as the dotLRN kernel is part of the product you distribute and it adheres to the EDUCATIONAL standards and quality set forth by the commitee. Reasoning: If I decide to rewrite part of the core or some applets, using C for better performance or slightly change the functionality, as AM/PM does not work in some countries, I should still be able to say it is based on dotLRN, without fear of beeing sued. Otherwise, what good is it to promote the brand when you may fear the sword will be turned against you in the future. I think Microsoft was using this tactic quite successfully, but that is just my gut impression 😊.

Al, Ben, please don't get me wrong. I'd never dream you had such things as described above in mind. But nevertheless, they were thoughts / ideas that struck my mind when reading about your proposals. And last but not least, I DO find it odd, that the organization PAYING most of the code and the one DEVELOPING most of it have a need to post DIFFERENT statements. IMHO, one statement with multiple options would have been a better way without leaving an odd fealing at least in my stomach.