In any "philosophical discussion" it's always good to return to first principles. What shouldn't get lost in this entire discussion is the fact that dotLRN would not be possible without
Ben's leadership and Yon and Arjun's brilliant contributions. Their code base is a gem. That's common ground.
With that, let me say how I am thinking about the composition of TAB. We all agree that opensource communities are meritocracies not democracies. TAB's role is to guide us toward the the best technical architecture for dotLRN. It's also a given that dotLRN's substrate is OpenACS. I think then we would all agree that TAB should be composed of those individuals who have the most expertise with dotLRN and OpenACS (as *recognized* by the community), can make the best technical judgements about platform direction and architecture, and are in a position to contribute. MIT should not have representation in TAB just for the sake of representation. If it turns out then that the criterion means that the majority of people in TAB would be from OpenForce, so be it. If the gatekeepers and members of TAB have not earned their reputation and do not have technical credibility, then we have a problem and dotLRN will not succeed.
