Robert Scott Horning wrote:
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they are not board members).
You want the Board to make a decision? Keep dreaming. If you want something done, do it yourself. Form your own organisation, secure your own funding, develop your own software.
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
Some software requirements are listed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity#Possible_software_needs
Making a comprehensive list is a job for a developer, and you don't seem to have any interested developers at the moment. It's much easier to put your name on a list of supporters than it is to write 1000 lines of code. Or indeed, to determine the requirements that that 1000 lines of code should fulfill.
-- Tim Starling