Don, and all,
I've been following the (extensive) discussions about the dotLRN
governance issues etc...and its all very interesting.
NB: Just to make it clear I have no opinions or comments to
make on the dotLRN stuff. We neither make much use of it nor have any
vested interest in its progression (other than dotWRK is our label ;).
As I think Don's pointed out its a separate effort from OACS
Having said that, it seems to me that the reason there's so much
cuffufle around the issue is that OpenACS lacks any clear governance
of its own.
The best way to ensure no negative side effects from
things like dotLRN is to have our own, clear, governance rules that
organisations such as MIT/SLOAN etc would then have to respect as part
of their own efforts
Its a good idea to have one anyway!
So I'd like to suggest (and I know we've discussed this before Don)
that OpenACS looks to formalise its structure somewhat and perhaps
create our own governance rules.
I suspect our requirements are slightly different in that the core ACS
is primarily a general purpose development driven effort.
I can think of a number of issuse however that it might address i.e.
Who can change code?
Who makes the final design decisions where there is contention?
How we organise submission, solicited or otherwise?
How we ensure Quality (definately with a captial Q).
I guess from my perspective I'd also like to see some kind of
formalisation of the community. i.e. a foundation (or whatever the
American equivalent is.)
Is there any agreement that this is worth pursuing? I feel that once
we have our own structure in place, the community in general can feel
more secure its future (in a form eveyone accepts) is assured.
(and of course we'll contribute to any such effort)
Cheers
all.... Simon
