Forum .LRN Q&A: Response to dotLRN Governance

Posted by Janine Ohmer on
Actually, I think that .ABC and .XYZ projects *should* have some representation at  Assuming they are based on OpenACS, which I think is a given.

Right now the number of projects is small, so IMHO there is no real harm in making the dotLRN site a subsite of  In the future there may be a proliferation of projects and the volume might become too much; at that point the represtation might change to one page which links out to where the project really resides.  But I think it's very important that these projects be presented as part of a larger community and not as satellite efforts, because as long as they are built on top of OpenACS they are not truly independent.

The goal I'm after here is not to promote dotLRN.  I'm just as interested, if not more so, in promoting OpenACS.  But we have to use the tools we have available and one of those tools is Sloan, which is planning to invest considerable time, effort and money into promoting dotLRN.  Every one of those dotLRN sites will also be an OpenACS site, and they'll be high-profile ones in many cases.  That can only be good for the acceptance and reputation of OpenACS.  So I want to do everything we can, within reason, to help promote *both* OpenACS and dotLRN.  And I personally feel that making it's development site a subsite of is within reason.