If they wanted to control it, they could just sell it as a proprietary package of education-specific packages to install on top of a vanilla OpenACS install, while of course redistributing changes to core packages like calendar to the OpenACS project under the GPL.
After all, in the past we've said this is ok. At least Ben and I and a couple of others agreed that it probably would be and no one objected at the time. We're not lawyers but we shared the same gut feeling.
If they wanted to Open Source it yet retain tighter control over its direction, they wouldn't bother with a governance process at all. They'd just do what they've done in the past - control direction by virtue of being the largest (for all practical purposes) funder. Face it, they'd drive it alone just like they drove ACES in the past and dotLRN to this point. Trademark, stature and money ... yep, they'd be the driver. They wouldn't have to listen to anyone.
So, sorry, there's really no getting around the fact that setting up a neutral consortium with representation by a variety of stakeholders means that they're ceding a significant level of control.
