Michael, about your three points:
1) I still believe you're overestimating the technical scope of IMS Simple Sequencing. I still suppose this is because you think it covers the whole field of adaptive learning, when it really only specifies a clearly delimited sequencing engine. SCORM, on the other hand, covers much more than just adaptive learning, as I interpret the term.
2) Yes, SCORM 1.3 implies IMS Simple Sequencing. But IMS Simple Sequences does not imply SCORM 1.3. It does make all the sense in the world for people working on SCORM 1.3 to study the IMS Simple Sequencing Specification and our adaptation of it into the OpenACS environment. Our project doesn't overlap Ernie's, even though his might overlap, or at the very least connect to, ours. He needs to adapt to our IMS-standard sequencing engine, but in principle we don't need to worry about his work, only about following IMS specifications. But of course we'll help fitting together our part with other parts, including Ernie's.
3) I never claimed that you were ranking projects, I only concluded that you, rightly, had detected that there are three fields people are currently working on which touch upon each other.
To anyone concerned, our view on collaboration is firmly rooted in the OpenACS community. The essence of it is openness. Everything that a developer does should be announced to the rest of the community, so that everyone (including the TAB) can scrutinize the quality of the work and be assured that the work does not infringe on the work of other developers. It is also well advised to contact Don for a go-ahead before setting out on a project, as we did before announcing our proposal for Curriculum. This way the technical advisor can stop projects that do not fit in with or risk doing damage to the OpenACS fundament.
It is not customary within this tradition, however, to work via the phone, especially in matters that are of public interest and in no way private. Neither is it customary to use the openness of other developers against them, by infringing on their work and then taking over the initiative, saying that it's okay for them to be responsible for the work they initiated only if they let go of their control over it. Those who do not respect this tradition of openness and community-wide collaboration are often referred to as "cowboys". The day cowboys are setting the standard for what is considered collaboration we will have experienced a revolution. I too would prefer it if the TAB set the standards.
