Ben wrote:
The question I was trying to answer is "how do we get non-OF people involved in dotLRN as soon as possible while maintaining a coherent direction?" - you'll note that the proposal is called "dotLRN *Technical* Governance." This is why my proposal is minimalist - to get things off the ground ASAP. However, I'm *not* excluding the later formation of other groups. I'm only saying that the formation of such groups should probably be organic, led by early adopters (users!) of dotLRN once they have some experience working together with dotLRN.
I agree with this completely. In fact, that is precisely what is happening. If you look at the posts of the few non-programming users and stakeholders in this discussion, they have all come out in varying degrees in favor of the MIT proposal. Al didn't make this up out of thin air; he wrote it after consulting with both programming and non-programming stakeholders. This is what we want--or at least the end users from whom I've heard up until now--after having had a little experience working together with dotLRN. I'd call that process fairly organic Maybe the product--two committees--doesn't feel very organic, but that product was requested from the grass roots.
So it seems to me that if the only major difference of opinion between OF and MIT is that OF wants to get a signal from non-programming stakeholders about what they want, then we may have one giant non-issue on our hands. Now, if the issue is waiting for more stakeholders to come to the table...well...you know my opinion on that issue. If you want to reach those who aren't here yet, then the best way to convince them to join is to create a governance structure that satisfies the stated needs of those who already are here.
