This thread was so long I had to open a window and write this
while reading. I still haven't finished so I hope this isn't a rehash or a misunderstanding of some fundemental ascpect.
Comittees - I understand the desire for a
committee, that said I think for dotLRN to grow no committee
should be formed. Of course I don't have any say in this as
MIT is funding this, but committees are great for killing
projects. Talk, talk, talk and little action is the result of
more than 2 people discussing technology.
People mention apache
as a successful governance model, I disagree. Apache 2.0? Apache
has a momentum that even a committee can't kill, it also has
money. I understand academics desires for committees and
meetings, but these are slow, bungling, politicized places where
the best seldom wins.
I also know of two extremely large (top 6) school districts planning on implementing dotLRN, with or without a committee. Therefore I completely disagree with those saying that without a committee dotLRN will die. On the contrary I think control by the principals is the main point of any committee, despite best intentions at the outset.
