There are two sides to this coin, Aaron.  I certainly agree with "it is to our advantage to publicly state goals and, very, publicly achieve those goals".  The slip side is that it is NOT to our advance to miss stated goals.  Unfortunately, OSE has a track record of missing it's stated goals.  Opinions of what can realistically be achieved in a given period of time (like, say, 2012), vary widely.  This has been discussed in some depth in other OSE forum topics.

Clearly, the big goal is the GVCS-50 in beta by year end 2012.  Marcin has stated quite publicly (even as part of the Kickstarter campaign) that we will meet this goal on one year.  Many others, including myself, think that will be difficult, but we have relatively little input into what Marcin chooses to declare as our shared goal. For example, would it be better to claim 30 machines and hit 40 or claim 50 and hit 40?  Also, there doesn't seem to be much room for partial success.  For example, in the case of the Steam Engine, I believe that we need to prototype and test several kinds of valve mechanisms.  If we worked out a good, reliable valve in 2012, we'd be 80% of the way towards a working engine.

Currently, we have ten project leaders.  We need another 40 ASAP.  Some of the projects slated for development in 2012 will take ALL YEAR to develop and built.  An aluminum extractor is not going to be designed and built in a month, IMO.  Fabrication of a decent sized solar concentrator will take considerable time.  Design of an open source car or truck will take all year unless we co-opt OSCar or some similar project.

Unfortunately, it's a bit late.  The goals have been set and already announced VERY publicly.  Therefore we'll just have to do our best to help reach them.

- Mark

Yep, you're not the first to have problems - see JackMcCornack: Forum membership approval problems.

That looks great Elifarley!

I see your point about "publishing unfinished alpha releases is still absolutely fine from my point of view", Mike, though there is the question of what constitutes an alpha release.  One idea I've been toying with for the Steam Engine is rather than releasing finished plans for a steam engine (which has proven difficult) is to create a "Steam Engine Construction Kit" with plans for multiple valve types, different control linkages, engine configurations, etc.  Eventually, a few solid designs might merge from such a kit, but at least it gets us to the starting point, rather than circling it endlessly.  Other projects might take a similar approach.

Regarding volunteer organization, perhaps we (the PM's) should create a process for handling people who express interest in participating in GVCS development.  It would include something like this:

1.  Get them signed up - accounts, team culturing, etc.
2.  Determine their skill sets - expertise, fabrication, CAD, documentation, etc.
3.  Determine their interests - how do they WANT to contribute
4.  Determine their time commitment
5.  Make a few project recommendations
6.  Pick one to work on (at the start)
7.  Introduce that person to the existing team
8.  Guide them into producing real contributions.

Some parts of this exist already, but determination of skill, interest, and time are not working effectively, IMO.  Also, there is no one guiding them into a project.  There is no reason why the first 4 or 5 steps couldn't be automated, but attempts to do this to date have failed.  I'm aware of at least two attempts to create a skill set database that haven't worked out - for various reasons.  Regardless, we need to have someone (or a few such people) who are willing to personally guide new comers into being productive members of the OSE community.  That person(s) must be knowledgeable of OSE projects and processes, have enough patience to work with newbies, and have enough authority to make decisions on how people should be assigned.

>  Trying to develop another 46 tools with full documentation and creating the next generation of the existing products

It's not even clear to me that there is enough space on a DVD to hold the whole GVCS documentation set, given the preference for video.  It will truly be a nightmare trying to created a coordinated release for 50 tools/technologies.  I've seen how hard it can be to create a massive software release.  The GVCS is just as hard (and maybe worse).  My recommendation would be to avoid it completely.  Release each product separately as they are ready.  Periodically, we can bundle releases into the "GVCS Manufacturing Suite", the "GVCS Material Refinement Suite", the "GVCS Power Generation Suite", etc.

>  as long as we maintain forward momentum and continue the development of these products and knowledge organization systems

I agree.  Forward progress is the most important thing.

- Mark