[Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition @ OKFestival 2014

Tue May 13 21:57:37 UTC 2014

So there we meet again ;)

Very interesting article you proffer here which I think addresses the issue head-on … I very much like the progression from usability through sociability and designability to openness and wholeheartedly support your call for multiple dimensions of openness (not only the transparency, accessibility, replicability, remixability, shareability and forkability).

The article makes me think about 2 things

(1) regarding the object of (co)design you sketch a progression from product through practice and system to “ecologies, infrastructures” — on face value this sounds like a linear progression to ever more encompassing “objects”.  I’m wondering:  would it not be more appropriate to characterize the move to openness as moving away from the one-dimensional progression product-practice-system to a multidimensional “commons”? (and what would its dimensions be, beyond the two we were both referring to)

(2) in your conclusion, you talk about a move from open artifacts to an (open) commons (this also influenced my suggestion above). Leaving out the discussion of why _open_ commons for the moment (which also could lead to very valid insights) I would very much like to collectively expand that paragraph and particularly those two sentences: "Finally, the openness turn locates design in open peer-driven process taking place in a commons that can be nurtured and infrastructured by designers and other collaborators. We must turn more seriously to the implications of creating such commons to ensure the sustainability and relevance of co-design in the future.”
By expanding I’m looking for two issues (a) empirical evidence of it happening (which probably is scarce) and (b) theoretical modelling.  
For the latter, I guess a good starting point for such a discussion could be Ostroms discussion of a commons using the IAD model (this is a good introduction: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1762685, but you’ll find tons of references online).  Could we arrive at a development of this model for open design?

/ Peter

On 13 May 2014, at 16:28, Marttila Sanna-Maria <sanna.marttila at aalto.fi> wrote:

> 
> Hello Massimo, Peter, all
> 
> First, I will be also participating in the Open Knowledge Festival in Berlin, and if needed I could contribute / assist with the Open design definition session. However this depends on the schedule, as I will be hosting another session during the festival.
> 
> Second, I also think it is very important to critically discuss the different facets of openness in design, and "open design". Personally I feel that participation/inclusion is one part of openness, however there are many other aspects. Maybe the conference paper, The ‘Openness Turn’ in Co-design. From Usability, Sociability and Designability Towards Openness - that I wrote together with my colleague can shed more light on what i mean. (http://thirdsector.mlog.taik.fi/files/2013/10/marttila-botero-cocreate.pdf)   
> 
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
> Sanna
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanna Marttila
> sanna.marttila at aalto.fi
> +358405770909
> 
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture - Media Lab
> http://mlab.taik.fi/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13.5.2014, at 11.33, Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Peter, Christian, all
>> thank you very much! :) I forgot to add, sorry: the organizers told me that there will be a briefing for all session organisers on Tuesday 15th in the morning, so you need to be in Berlin by then. Is it still ok for you? Let me know!
>> 
>> There are no problems at all with not reaching version 1.0, I'd prefer that we do it more slowly but with more discussion than to just reach it for the sake of publishing the definition and closing the project (which will probably last longer with less activity after 1.0). We can also try to continue its discussion at Open Hardware Summit. It is currently version 0.3, so we have still a lot to do!
>> 
>> You're right about IP, let me reframe it: I was thinking "critical" more for the part that I was working on in the definition than generally critical for Open Design. Though there is a lot of discussion also on the Open Hardware Association mailing list regarding IP and Open Hardware, and it's a never ending problem that we still have to face, with people attaching Creative Commons to anything (even when it does not work because it's not copyright) or without a clear idea about what to do with IP or just in search for the perfect ultimate license (even if maybe it doesn't work with that specific IP). Maybe we should also say in the definition that CC, other licenses or any other practice do not give you any 100% protection security, only well paid lawyers do. I guess that IP is more important for people who are already convinced to do Open Design, than to people who are just approaching the topic.
>> 
>> I think that the problem you raised with the topic Open Access vs. Open Contribution is very important, so it would be a good idea to discuss this topic and add a section to the definition. It could bring to a (new or the same) section regarding the motivations for doing Open Design, something that is not present yet in the definition but could be very important to elaborate.
>> So one idea for the Festival would be to focus specifically on this topic in order to add a new section, and then if there's time or anybody has ideas for the existing parts, new issues / comments can be made. What do you think about it?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Massimo
>> 
>> Il 13/05/14 08:48, Christian Villum ha scritto:
>>> Hi Massimo, Peter,
>>> 
>>> I'll also be at OKFestival and would be happy to give a hand with this
>>> session if helpful. I must admit though that I haven't been too involved
>>> with the work on the open design definition so far, but would be happy
>>> to contribute nonetheless. If nothing else, I plan to attend the session
>>> and take part in the discussion.
>>> 
>>> Interesting thoughts here, Peter - I agree with your concerns and find
>>> it relevant in other fields as well, although it's particularly
>>> interesting in the design field because of it's "low-ip" nature, as you
>>> also point out. I guess the question is whether the definition should
>>> explicitly address this or rather leave it be an implicit factor (I'm
>>> not saying that it should). Will look forward to this discussion!
>>> 
>>> -Christian
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Christian Villum
>>> International Community Manager
>>> 
>>> skype: christianvillum  | @villum <http://www.twitter.com/villum>
>>> Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>/ - See how data can change the world
>>> /http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> Facebook
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> | Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <trox at fabfolk.com
>>> <mailto:trox at fabfolk.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Massimo
>>> 
>>>   very sorry to hear that you won’t be able to make it to Berlin in
>>>   July … I’m planning to be there for sure.  So I sure could happily
>>>   step in to facilitate the discussion.
>>> 
>>>   However, I’ve got an issue that I’d like to share with the group and
>>>   get some feedback (see below).  The risk, however, is, that my issue
>>>   would possibly dominate the discourse in a way that is not exactly
>>>   helping to close the definition towards 1.0 but rather to open the
>>>   discussion … Thoughts welcome!
>>> 
>>>   / Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   So here I go:
>>> 
>>>   Over the past months I’ve come to the conclusion that focusing on
>>>   “intellectual property” as “the most critical part” (as you phrase
>>>   it) is distracting the discussion from the more important questions
>>>   of the role of the designer in open design.
>>> 
>>>   In a nutshell, the current (self-)image of the designer is impeding
>>>   open design to succeed.
>>> 
>>>   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).
>>> 
>>>   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).
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   [1] Raustiala, K. and Sprigman, C.J. (2012). The Piracy Paradox:
>>>   Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law
>>>   Review, (92) 8, pp. 1687-1777, online at
>>>   http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1687.pdf (accessed
>>>   20 September 2012).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   On 12 May 2014, at 18:48, Massimo Menichinelli
>>>   <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi
>>>   <mailto:massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I proposed a workshop for discussing the Open Design Definition at OKFestival 2014 in Berlin, and the workshop was accepted. The bad news is, even if I would really love to meet you all there, unfortunately I cannot make it to Berlin for the Festival this year. I had a change in plans and I will move to a new city just 1 day after the Festival, so it is really hard for me to be there. It would be great therefore if any of you is going to be at the Festival and would like to facilitate an Open Design Definition workshop.
>>>> There is no need to do a lot of work, maybe we will complete the definition at a later stage (maybe with another workshop at the Open Hardware Summit for example?), but it would be great to have a discussion on its current status and how it could be improved. Everything can be done just with issues and comments on GitHub, so there is no need for using Git: everything can be done like it were a Facebook group (but if you want, you can edit the code directly online or with fork/pull request of course).
>>>> For the workshop, you can even access the project and work with a mobile:
>>>> GitHub for Android:http://mobile.github.com/
>>>> GitHub for iPhone:http://ioctocat.com/
>>>> 
>>>> As you can read from the previous e-mail below, now the most important part of the definition regards how it is possible to deal with intellectual property for making Open Design possible. This is the most critical part where we need more discussion, especially with IP experts. But other parts of the definition can still be discussed of course.
>>>> 
>>>> Is anybody interested in facilitating this workshop?
>>>> If you are interested in this, please let me know and I will put you in contact with the organizers.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Massimo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [Open Design + Hardware] legal paper on design
>>>> Data: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:10:24 +0100
>>>> Mittente: Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi <mailto:massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>>
>>>> A: <opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Tom (and all),
>>>> I've finally had the time to read 2-3 times your paper, so I finally can
>>>> reply. First of all, thank you very much for sharing it, and thanks for
>>>> the effort of making clearer this topic of IP and Open Design. I would
>>>> say that this is a big step forward for all of us, even if the paper
>>>> considers only the European context it is the first real research I've
>>>> encountered on the issue (so it's really a milestone!).
>>>> 
>>>> It has been very useful for me in order to work on the Open Design
>>>> Definition. If you remember it, we were about to specify all the
>>>> different forms of IP that can be applied to any design project, and
>>>> what to do with each form of IP in order to share the project and make
>>>> it Open Design. I hope to have understood well your paper, I've used a
>>>> lot of content from it, please have a look at the last version of the
>>>> Open Design Definition here:
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/blob/master/open.design_definition/open.design.definition.md
>>>> 
>>>> Please also remember that you can directly edit in the browser the file
>>>> by going to this link:
>>>> https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/edit/master/open.design_definition/open.design.definition.md
>>>> 
>>>> But you can also reply to this e-mail, and I will work on the definition
>>>> considering your e-mails.
>>>> We still need to focus on the patents, trade mark and trade dress before
>>>> completing this section (and therefore the real first version of the
>>>> definition, let's say that it will be with version 0.5).
>>>> 
>>>> Look forward to reading your comments on the topic! :)
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Massimo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Il 02/12/13 16:10, t. ha scritto:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> a paper on legal aspects of design rights and copyright in the EU, with
>>>>> some creative commons licenses. A bit long, but should be of some
>>>>> interests to this list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://ssrn.com/abstract=2361682
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> tom
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> opendesign mailing list
>>>>> opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>>>> Unsubscribe:http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>>>> Massimo Menichinelli
>>>> mobile: (ITA)+39 3402971655 <tel:%2B39%203402971655>
>>>> Skype:openp2pdesign.org <http://openp2pdesign.org>
>>>> http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
>>>> openp2pdesign.org <http://openp2pdesign.org>
>>>> Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
>>>> http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> opendesign mailing list
>>>> opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> opendesign mailing list
>>>> opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>> 
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   opendesign mailing list
>>>   opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>>   https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>>   Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>> 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/
>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> opendesign mailing list
>> opendesign at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
> 