Forum .LRN Q&A: Response to continuation of dotLRN Governance

Posted by Peter Marklund on
Andrew, I think documentation is an important point, the tradition of documenting packages from the ArsDigita days has been lost, not only in dotLRN but also in OpenACS in general.

A point that I would like to see considered by the Technical Advisory Board and the Executive Board is to merge bug fixes and improvements done in the MIT and Berklee trees (and at other universities - Missisippi, Vienna...) into the official tree. Also, and maybe more importantly, is there any compelling reason why MIT couldn't use official code base? The code base would gain much more credibility that way. Andrew?