So I spent a good deal of time reading and re-reading this thread. We also talked a lot about this issue while at LinuxWorld.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm *NOT* trying to beat the horse again (hope I'm saying this right). Rather, I'm just bringing up some concerns I (and others) have with respect to the executive board and the future of dotlrn.
I can say that there is a LOT of interest in dotlrn from talking many times to people at LinuxWorld. I'm glad that MIT chose to base it on OpenACS, and has funded its initial development, and that Al Aessa has been understanding and patient with the community. The input given by many on this thread have been really interesting, and certainly would make a good reading for open source project leaders if summarized.
It's great that the executive board will focus dotlrn on the needs of the users (to paraphrase Al Aessa). I don't disagree with the existance of such board. However, my main concern is what will happen if/when the board becomes populated with people with vested interests on _THEIR_ dotlrn users?
To be more especific, I've heard rumours that Microsoft is _sponsoring_ a port of dotlrn (and apparently a good chunk of OpenACS) to .NET. In that case, if my understanding is correct, Microsoft would be a part of that board.
Given past experience of how Microsoft behaves when dealing with committees and competitors, and how much clout they have, I fear that the board would get corrupted in every sense of the word, especially technically speaking, since TAB decisions can be overruled by the EB.
Again, I don't disagree with having a board inasmuch as we have trustable people there. I also agree with it being focused on user needs. Are/will there (be) provisions to avoid such thing from happenning?
Thanks.
-Roberto
