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?
Thanks Malte. You saved me from writing a lengthy message -- given the fact that I'm not a native English speaker that would take a lot of my time. Well, I share some of the same questions/concerns that Malte posted in his message. No need for me to elaborate on that.I would appreciate some answers as well, though.
As far as the Apache Software Foundation that Don mentions above, note that:
"Individuals who have made sustained and important contributions to one or more of the foundation's projects can be invited to become Members of the Apache Software Foundation. The members guide the foundation in much the same way that shareholders guide a traditional corporation. Most importantly, the members are responsible for the selection of the Board of Directors. The members coordinate their activities through their mailing list and through an annual meeting."
In what way, could something similar work for the .LRN and/or OpenACS consortium? I'm not delusinating here -- I know and comprehend the fact that Sloan funded dotLRN. OTOH, though, "There is no dotLRN without OpenACS" and I'm quoting Ben here. OpenACS is powered by the blood, sweat, and tears of the OpenACS community ("the people who fund it") and I'm quoting the footer on our front page here (probably written by Don). In what way the consortium will recognize/empower the contributions of the OpenACS community and the "Foundation Members" in the sense that they are recognized/empowered in the Apache Software Foundation?
Al, this is my first suggestion w.r.t your request. This way we keep the top-down structure of governance and at the same time the consortium is decentralized enough that copyright ownership *could* never become a real issue (in the sense that I described in my previous message).
