[Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition @?OKFestival 2014 (francesco fortino)

Sun May 25 14:32:42 UTC 2014

imho Acces and Contribution are two elements that may or may not come
together, but in some way Contribution implies Access, more than
vice-versa: something without access can't be openly developed neither
privately contributed. Open Design may come from an Idea, developed by the
former group (or individual), that releases it at a development level
decided by the group/individual itself. I've called it "Idea" referring to
the partecipation matrix used for the ODefinition. However this idea could
be both an "open call" such as "we'd like to design a bicycle, let's do it
together", or a full-working design, later improved by the community.

Summarizing these concepts, we could say that a design grants "open access"
state just when it's published through a collaborative platform
(f.egGithub) under an open/free license (mostly Creative Commons),
while
Contribution may come later.

Contribution sounds like a consequence of open access to me, however
someone may want to "lock" the design from external contribution,
developing it alone. I made this consideration just to better cover the
whole case scenario, since it may sound a bit nonsense, but it reminds to
me the ND case of CC license in some way.

You can find a scheme about these concept attached to this e-mail that uses
an "adapted" Semiotic Square as a framework (since Access and Contribution
are not opposites, but it's anyway comprehensible)

Just to make an example, I'd like to share with you a project i've posted
on github few time ago that should be compatible with the Open Design
Definition:
https://github.com/frafor1988/opensonora-alpha

OpenSonora Alpha fell under the No-contribution / No-Access axis during the
development, sometimes moving to the Contribution / No-Access axis, or
falling around the Limited/Restricted Access/Contribution axes, since i've
asked for help to a friend of mine, but i didn't share with him all the
schemes, neither I made them publicly available under an Open license. In
all cases, it was Closed Design, until i've got them working at a
satisfying quality level and published the schemes on Github under
CC-BY-SA: now it's an OpenDesign shared project, and anyone can contribute.
However, the speakers cannot move to the top Access / Contribution axis
since i'm the only contributor at the moment.

Francesco

2014-05-25 14:00 GMT+02:00 <opendesign-request at lists.okfn.org>:

> Send opendesign mailing list submissions to
>         opendesign at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         opendesign-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         opendesign-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of opendesign digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Open Design Definition @?OKFestival 2014
>       (Massimo Menichinelli)
>    2. Policies for Open Design+Hardware+Manufacturing for Ecuador
>       (Massimo Menichinelli)
>    3. Re: Open Design Definition @?OKFestival 2014 (Dr. Peter Troxler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 18:18:35 +0200
> From: Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>
> To: "Dr. Peter Troxler" <trox at fabfolk.com>
> Cc: opendesign at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition
>         @?OKFestival 2014
> Message-ID: <5380C65B.9090706 at aalto.fi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Il 12/05/14 22:56, Dr. Peter Troxler ha scritto:
> > Expanding on that: Alastair Fuad-Luke reports finding it hard to involve
> fashion designers in an ?open fashion? project (despite fashion recognized
> as a ?low-ip? field of design, [1]).  At various conferences I found
> designers blurring or even confusing their role of social activists and
> professional designers in social interventions (most recently at the
> Cumulus conference in Aveiro, PT).
> >
>
> In my lecturing experience, I haven't found any problems in motivating
> the students in releasing their project as open source (and the students
> were mostly designers but with different backgrounds). Only one person
> did not want to realease a 700 Mb file. It maybe depends on many
> factors, but often there are questions regarding IP and Open Design, so
> this is an important topic.
>
> > I am arguing (in a model developed with colleagues) that ?open? has two
> dimensions, open access and open contribution and that the discussion on
> open design has been focused too much on the ?access? dimension and not
> sufficiently on the ?contribution? dimension ? or in more detail: that the
> contribution dimension stops at ?co-design? or any other designer-led
> format but fails to develop ?open design? beyond a situation where
> designers are not in the lead (for the sake of the argument I understand
> ?facilitation? as ?lead?).  Imho, in a real open design situation designers
> should only provide the methods, but not apply/execute them (facilitation).
>
> I agree on the difference between "open access" and "open contribution",
> this is something that we can add to the definition. At the moment I
> just added a quick note to the design process part: feel free to commet
> here with an e-mail or on the link, I will bring it to the definition:
>
> https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/commit/03c2d543242fed0d8e999b79d96c6671b46406a6
>
> Personally, I've always been interested in making Open Design the
> outcome of a collaborative process, rather than a single person project
> (but both are possible so both should be part of the definition), so I
> agree on the difference between access and contribution (the whole open
> p2p design first and open metadesign rearch later focuses on making a
> collaborative participation in the open design process possible).
>
> Regarding the idea that designers should only facilitate and not really
> work in open design projects: this is an interesting point that needs
> further discussion and research (I don't agree at the moment: Open
> Design should also be for designers! Maybe the problem lays in finding
> the right motivations for them to participate in Open Design). But
> regardless of the opinion, both possibilities should be in the definition.
>
> How can we expand this in the definition?
>
>
> Massimo
>
> --
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Massimo Menichinelli
> mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655
> Skype: openp2pdesign.org
> http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
> openp2pdesign.org
> Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
> http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:27:16 +0200
> From: Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>
> To: "opendesign at lists.okfn.org" <opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: [Open Design + Hardware] Policies for Open
>         Design+Hardware+Manufacturing for Ecuador
> Message-ID: <5380E484.8020705 at aalto.fi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Dear all,
> as you may already know, Ecuador is developing a set of policies for a
> transition towards a "Free Libre Open Knowledge" Society (FLOK Society),
> based on free and open principles and methods. You can find more
> information regarding this project here:
>
> http://floksociety.org/
> http://p2pfoundation.net/FLOK_Society_Project
>
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-flok-society-project-ecuador-commits-itself-to-a-open-commons-based-knowledge-society/2013/09/20
>
> Next week there will be in Ecuador an event, Cumbre del Buen Conocer,
> where this policies will be discussed:
> http://cumbredelbuenconocer.ec/
>
> I've been invited to this event for discussing the policies regarding
> Open Design, Open Hardware, Distributed Manufacturing. I think it will
> be a great opportunity not only for Ecuador but also for the other
> participants to redistribute the knowledge produced during the meeting,
> so I expect to learn a lot from this meeting. I have of course many
> ideas regarding possible suggestions for policies, but I would like to
> hear also ideas from you, and I would be happy to bring your suggestions
> to the discussions! Please let's discuss ideas here!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Massimo
>
> --
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Massimo Menichinelli
> mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655
> Skype: openp2pdesign.org
> http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
> openp2pdesign.org
> Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
> http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 01:22:57 +0200
> From: "Dr. Peter Troxler" <trox at fabfolk.com>
> To: Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>
> Cc: opendesign at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition
>         @?OKFestival 2014
> Message-ID: <9B3FDDF0-8EBF-45E1-9410-9A360218E60C at fabfolk.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> On 24 May 2014, at 18:18, Massimo Menichinelli <
> massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi> wrote:
>
> >>  Imho, in a real open design situation designers should only provide
> the methods, but not apply/execute them (facilitation).
> >
> > Regarding the idea that designers should only facilitate and not really
> work in open design projects: this is an interesting point that needs
> further discussion and research (I don't agree at the moment: Open Design
> should also be for designers! Maybe the problem lays in finding the right
> motivations for them to participate in Open Design). But regardless of the
> opinion, both possibilities should be in the definition.
>
> Probably I was not exactly sharp enough in my suggestion.
>
> What I wanted to say is:  given certain methods to facilitate
> participation in open designing are made available anybody should be
> allowed/able to lead the process and everybody should be allowed/able to
> participate in designing.
>
> A situation in which facilitation was reserved for designers or one in
> which certain designerly tasks were reserved for designers would not
> correspond to an open participatory situation in my thinking.  But surely I
> would want designers to take part in such open design settings!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20140525/48360852/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> opendesign mailing list
> opendesign at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/opendesign
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of opendesign Digest, Vol 26, Issue 13
> ******************************************
>

-- 

*Francesco Fortino*
*STUDIO SUPERFLUO* - Progettazione sostenibile - www.studiosuperfluo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20140525/740c3a26/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: access-contribution-semiotic-square.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 57245 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20140525/740c3a26/attachment-0001.jpg>