Most of us are familiar with the for-profit Corporation legal model. When we say, "run like a business," this is usually what we are referencing. The "not-for-profit" corporate model also works, and might work in this case, too. NPR is probably not an ideal example, but the St. Petersburg Times probably is a better example. They run a daily newspaper that runs on advertising but their journalists are isolated from their executives and advertisers, and the 'not-for-profit' charter protects them from the takeovers that have destroyed so many other daily newspaper compeditors over the last twenty years. I think Wikipedia could probably adapt that 'not-for-profit' model successfully, and do away with their hot and cold running begathon forever. sc

I appreciate the book reviews posted here. This thread obviously has a problem with this review (good as it is) because they can't figure out what the product does. Moodle isn't alone. Open source projects often fail because they don't explain what their products do. Definitions seem obvious to the skilled, idealistic and insightful engineers who create OS software, but definitions and overviews are NOT obvious to anyone else. Further; The OS engineers who write docs often lack the skills they need to write documentation that helps their users. When their docs fail, their product fails -- and they never quite know why. So Moodle (whatever it is) needs to be defined; so I can no longer put "whatever it is" in parentheses when I refer to it. I need to see Moodle defined in terms of the specific problems it solves for me. Briefly tell me how Moodle works -- then break out a list of functions it performs, and tell me what each function does. Be specific. Include brief examples. Once you give me a practical sense for what your product produces for me, I'll be ready to read about installation, configuration, customization, admin tasks, content creation and session-building for students. ... but be specific -- appending an acronym to a product name is not a definition. sc