| Follow @gregdek
DURHAM
Greg DeKoenigsberg is the Vice President of Community for Ansible, where he leads the company's relationship with the broader open source community. Greg brings to Ansible over a decade of open source product and community leadership, with the majority of this time spent building and leading communities for open source leader Red Hat. While at Red Hat, Greg served in various community leadership roles, including senior community architect, leader of the Fedora project, chair of the first Fedora Project Board, and Red Hat community liaison with the One Laptop Per Child project. More recently, Greg led community and product efforts for open source cloud pioneer Eucalyptus Systems.
Authored Comments
...and mind you, this is what I've heard from those trying to learn it and use it -- is that it's a DoD standard that is as complicated as any other milspec standard. Seems to me that SCORM is useful only as an invisible standard that is as good as the tools that support it and mostly hide it from view.
Put another way: SCORM is kinda like SGML -- another complex, milspec standard. Maybe we need simple, intuitive tools that allow teachers to create SCORM-compliant content -- or maybe we need another standard altogether. In the way that SGML begat HTML, maybe SCORM can beget a simpler, more useful standard.
I see that someone's working on a set of SCORM modules for Moodle: how's that going? And where's the conversation about Vygotsky taking place? *That* would be a brilliant thread to follow -- ZPD driven by a software-based decision/learning tree.
I also think that it's worth driving the "share coursework" button idea hard, and would be willing to advocate for some limited RH resources to help make it happen (although it doesn't seem like it should be that complex). I agree that the cultural issues will definitely be present, but until there's a *reason* to make that cultural shift, no one has any reason to try.
If there's a big Moodle conference going on anytime soon in the US, I'd love to see you there.
...as though the government isn't already in the textbook business. Except, of course, that federal, state, and local governments:
* Pay for the *vast* majority of textbook purchases;
* Pay the salaries of the *vast* majority of teachers who use these textbooks;
* Set the standards for textbook acceptance.
Since the government is already paying that money anyway, I would contend that the government has every right to expect more out of the textbook industry -- which, right now, is completely dominated by a very small number of players who have zero incentive to innovate.
I guarantee you that the government doesn't want to write textbooks. They just want more, and better, options about how to spend the gigantic sums of money they already spend.
We certainly agree the competition is the marketplace is good. Do you think we're getting that now? I don't.