Well, this thread has really prompted a lot of reactions. I hope I can take a seat at the table too, although I'm aware that I don't have a seat if this is a pure meritocracy.
Anyway, my suggestions to adjust Al's proposal are (bluntly):
1. Drop the .LRN kernel (as a name) and seek governance for one permanent OpenACS-.LRN-.XYZ kernel (don't fork from the start)
2. Use the .LRN trademark for the .LRN package of applets only (if possible)
3. Be sure there's no conflict with a dotLearn trademark
Why?
1. How long will it take before the dotLRN kernel and OpenACS kernel drift apart, if they receive separate Governance? How long will it take before a third strong project will appear to disperse developers even more? Shouldn't there be an agreement on the future of the kernel first (or is there?), when discussing governance? When I searched this thread for kernel/core I found conflicting point of views.
So again, is one kernel/core feasible and is the current kernel forking (as I perceive it) unique for this occasion?
2. Is it possible to redefine the OpenACS kernel as Open-Application's CommunityCore-System (OpenACS/OpenACCS),
with .LRN being the 'office-like' Package of Applets(Open-Applications) that serves the educational community.
This way a .LRN UAB could fit in as easy as a .XYZ application package. Could there be a required OpenACS tarball and some optional application tarballs (.LRN, .XYZ, etcetera).
It really feels dangerous to ask all these questions, so I really hope I'm not stepping on toes here.
But, would 1. and 2. support/disturb .LRN development in the future?
How much would it support/disturb OpenACS development?
From my user's point of view -with no balanced opinion on governance- I would like to see a governance that prevents forking or primary features (groups-admin) from being ignored.
3. Lars mentioned: "...customers that we can't sell to today don't care so much about software, they'd like a brand, a name that they can trust. MIT and .LRN and this body could give us that. "
Just to be sure, is IntelliPro.com in on the .LRN-project? If not, isn't there a (brand-name)problem, since they registered dotLearn.com/net/org in 1999?
