I believe that the structure and operation of a "Social Software Institute" should parallel, as much as possible, the same "memes" that have given rise to the concerns around Social Software. Open, public, light, with a community oriented mindset and taking advantage of the same tools, it could very well be a model for other new types of academic-practitioners-learners collaboration, which is probably one of the forms that education and research will take in the near future (at least formally, because that has always been the nature of true learning and research). In other words, I think that a discussion about an Institute should not only address the subjects related Social Software, but also the form, methods and tools, for new ways to relate academy and practitioners to the general public.

I have a gut feeling that there may be some tune out on the practitioner side because of the word "software."

When using "social software" (I tend to call it software 'cause it ain't social till there are people involved!) most practitioners have come to the point where we use whatever software we can or have to use (based on availability, situation, cost, etc) and that the real practice comes in how we deploy the software. Now part of that is design, but most of it is group processes with PEOPLE. The social part.

Our attention, I'd guess, is more on social practices rather than on "social software."