Neophytos: I do plan to submit a revised proposal in the next few days but it will not be substantively different from the existing one.
I am a great admirer of Classical Greek Civiliation and a student of Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides. I, therefore, find your comparison of this debate to the exchange between the Athenians and Melians interesting but absurd. Please provide arguments instead of using indirection as a rhetorical tool. State *clearly* what you want, what you fear, and what you think the governance model should be. Lay it out on the table and let everyone examine your views. Do you have any substantive proposal to bring forward?
The implication that we are trying to strong arm openACS developers is ludicrous and you know it. Don't forget that we are making available code under GPL with the goal of *growing* the OpenACS community. We are not taking anything away. As everyone knows, we have no control over OpenACS and this governance model is not about OpenACS development. Similarly, we have not the intention, desire, or ability to compel anyone to do anything with the dotLRN code. But you don't have to believe our intentions. Even if we harbored imperial designs, GPL does not permit anyone to seize control of the code. To claim otherwise is sheer sophistry on your part.
As Lawrence Lessig has observed, opensource code is by definition "non-rivalrous". This means that my using it does not take away or hinder your ability to enjoy it in anyway. Isn't it absurd to call us "imperialists" when we our sharing our code and designing mechanisms to have *more* code available as opensource? The Technical Advisory Board will consist mostly, if not entirely, of opensource developers. Moreover, our proposal is intended to give *more* representation to more constituents.
Maybe you can enlighten us all about your "private chat". I still don't know what you want or what you are arguing for. What do you want?
