Okay, I just came across http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSE_Scaling_Strategy which basically lays out a strategy in which all design work is done by paid contractors or employees, instead of learning to work with a community.  Again, if you can get that kind of money, sure.  Although it does send swirling down the crapper a lot of the benefits of the usual open source development process.

Hopefully some other organization will be willing to work with volunteers then some time in the future.   I guess we might as well go now then.

Secondly, if this is the plan, I frankly feel burned.  I spent a lot of time on this because I though what I did might make a difference.  Apparently the policy is to ignore the disposable volunteers and just pay developers to do it how Marcin says, instead.  If that's the policy this needs to be CLEARLY displayed on the front page to avoid deceiving people.

I though I would be able to cook up a big response, but upon reflection, I do not need to, I think it is easy to respond simply.  I think that we need a professional level of organization, and I think Marcin needs to be freed up (by himself primarily) to focus on his strongest areas, which is tech related.

I would say what would give OSE a lot
more momentum is a coordinated effort to start local groups. As
someone who has so far just been on the outside looking in, reading
the forums, and exploring the wiki, there has been this tendency to
loose momentum from a lack of feeling this is a coordinated team
effort. It feels like your suppose to contribute to the wiki with no
sense you are accomplishing the larger effort or that you have to
start your own project unsupported and hope it will be accepted with
no financial backing.

This group needs to be decentralized.
This group needs face to face contact to build trust in the system.
This project cannot benefit that much from evangelizism because the
entry threshold is so large. There is the time getting lost in the
wiki, finding the correct channels to find a project or where you
would be useful, finding that all most projects have to self funded.
And although these problems are being addressed, they'll will always
be a lose of momentum without transparency and the trust that
accompanies.

To ease this transition people need to
be inspired and engaged personally so that they feel valued. Local
groups are more inspiring and engaging, are more capable of raising
the money, and can hold up a sustained workflow since there is more
pride and personal accountability. Instead of just throwing
everything into a kitty we could have a local approach to fund
individual prototypes through the members, their friends and familys,
or events. These local events could also fuel membership.

I think the "Join" page
should change to reflect this. Maybe we could use meetup.com or have
team locations on the crowdmap in a visable way on "Join"
page. Here are some potential ideas for guidelines:

• starting a local chapter

  
  

• how the meetings would go

  
  

• coordinated projects with the
  larger group

  
  

• a place to put meeting minutes

  
  

• guides for presentations and
  discussions

  
  

• Presentations on contributing to
  the wiki

  
  

• Fundraising planning and events

  
  

This would also be a good way to
roll-out documentation and explaining videos as people would prepare
summaries of their work for meetings. It would also be a great way to
recruit people and give a greater security that their investment was
going to be used effectively since they personally know the people
they are giving money too. It would also be a great way to bring in
more press, bring in non-technical people, documenters, and introduce
people to practical ways they can contribute if they are at an entry
level. It would also bring more technical people since they could see
tangible results, have a following, and be truly thrust into
leadership positions.

Potential problems could be deciding
what to talk about at meetings. I suppose they could start
informally. Just for lunch maybe. People could talk about what they
hope to achieve, what their experience is, if they have made any
contributions. Then gradually they could picks projects of interest
and get resources to work on it or makes reports that could be added
to the wiki. They could then start pulling people in and have
fundraising efforts.

Some expanding on this idea may be
neccesary.

Patience, gentlemen.  Work is happening on getting OSE better organized.  If you want to get a better view of this, have a look at http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSE/Index.

@fitzsnaggle
Your suggestions are good ones and many of them are being worked out.  As you might imagine, most of the people involved in running OSE as an organization are also very involved in its mission critical technical projects (including me).  It's difficult to balance everything at times.  Rest assured that suggestions are being listened to (by me, at least).

@gregor
Ever hear the expression "aim high, shoot low"?  Having lofty, even difficult to achieve goals is one way to achieve excellence.  Are we likely to nail every goal?  No, I doubt it.  However, that shouldn't stop us from trying.

@DAWG
I do not think that the best interest of OSE are served by the establishment of splinter groups or competing organizations.  While you are perfectly free to create whatever group you like, it would be unethical to hijack the work of OSE to date to establish it.  If OSE were a defunct organization, there might be some justification for it, but given the level of activity and efforts involved, I hardly think that is the case.  Forking and splintering is not the way to solve this problem.

@mjn - As I see it, diversity is one of the keys to a healthy open source community.  Much like the way the Internet works by routing it's way through available nodes to get to its destination.  There's nothing wrong with having like minded groups forming around OSE. 

Marcin has made it clear that he does not intend to fund off Farm projects.  So, if projects need to fund themselves, they may as well take a stab at creating a better organization at the same time.

As everything is being done via the Open Source model, I see no conflict with being involved with more than one of these groups.  We're all headed in the same direction anyway.

The Dawg

@dawg
>  As I see it, diversity is one of the keys to a healthy open source
community

Oh, I agree, actually.  However, diversity is a strength when it is cooperative in nature.  It contributes far less when it is competitive.  Are you proposing a cooperative project project outside of OSE?

>  Much like the way the Internet works by routing it's way through
available nodes to get to its destination.

I don't quite see the analogy there, Damien.  Internet routers generally run the same software, the same protocols, and offer the same services - if on slightly different hardware.  Diversity is not the strength of internet routing - flexibility is.

>  There's nothing wrong with having like minded groups forming around
OSE.

What exactly are you proposing?

>  Marcin has made it clear that he does not intend to fund off Farm
projects.

Indeed?  Somehow, I got a different message.  It has more to do with capabilities and project coordination than maintaining a secret skunk works in Missouri.

>  As everything is being done via the Open Source model, I see no conflict
with being involved with more than one of these groups.

What groups are you referring to?  Creating new project groups outside of OSE that are focused on the same concepts, ideas, and technologies?  As you say, the nature of open source doesn't prevent you from doing that, though it seems a bit wasteful to me.

@fitzsnaggle

>  A lot of the projects that contribute to 
OSE are independently funded. A lot the work that has been done was just added to the project or expanded on (Solar Fire, RepRap, 
etc...).

Well, that's true to some extent, though SolarFire is receiving funding from OSE.  However, you are talking about cooperative ventures here.  There is certainly a place for that sort of thing in and out of OSE.  I think OSE is quite prepared to work with any other organization prepared to make a significant contribution to furthering our goals.

>  What I am proposing is local chapters under the OSE banner, 
so that they are easy for new members to find and participate in but with more autonomy than is being planned.

OSE Local Chapters will have a fair degree of autonomy, as currently defined.  They will be encouraged to build and tinker with all of the OSE and GVCS technologies.  I would also think that new ideas from them or suggestions would be welcome.  As I see it, there is nothing to prevent someone in Peoria, IL from starting a local maker or fabrication club.  If they want to talk about or tinker with OSE stuff - more power to 'em.  However, if they want to be associated with OSE "as an organization", it seems reasonable to me that they would be willing to accept the guidelines being established for said local chapters.  Do you think the proposed guidelines are onerous or truly limit autonomy?  I'd be interesting in hearing more specific comments.

>  It is not wise to require all members
to become True Fans (but rather encourage them to), to have Marcin
de-facto leader until GVSC is complete, or have all donations
channeled through the main branch.

Why do you feel that way?  Personally, I think that being a True Fan should be optional, but many organizations have dues.  Perhaps there should be different classes of membership?  As for Marcin as the de-facto leader, you might want to consider the fact that Marcin IS the de-facto leader.  He is the founder of OSE.  He holds the vision.  He is the director, dictator, and final arbitrator of how things will be done.  That will remain the case unless or until he decides to step down or delegate his authority.

>  This kind of hierarchy will cause
a lot bottlenecks and kill momentum when the people who are affected are not in direct contact with the arbitrator.

Oh, I don't really think so.  Yeah, bottle necks are possible, but also far more likely in a decentralized organization than a hierarchical one.  Momentum is perhaps an issue, but there is more than one way to measure it.  If people decide to stop posting to the OSE forums in droves, does that really prevent progress on the projects?  I kinda doubt it.  Ultimately, progress (and hence momentum) will be measured by results.  We may not hit the lofty goals that Marcin has set for us but all progress is good progress and will benefit all.  As for those not in contact with Marcin - I've never met the man.  Never been to FeF.  It hasn't affected my ability to contribute in the slightest.  I would like to meet some day, however.

>  This has the potential to create too
much bad blood and thereby lose potential collaborators as you lower
sense of ownership especially those who are not highly-technically
proficient or completely self-motivated.

LOL  In any social organization there will be pissed off people, bad blood, and outright hatred.  Marcin isn't taking away ownership.  My belief is that he would love to give full ownership to virtually any GVCS project to someone he trusts, but therein lies the rub.  Who to trust?  It is very, very hard to find capable, committed, competent, dedicated, people for tasks that often involve high technology, significant education and experience, and compete with corporations for the same people.  Faced with such a daunting task, is it any wonder that Marcin chooses to oversee most of the projects himself?

>  We will not be able to
engage people properly or hold them accountable to do their work if
they feel they feel expendable.

Trusted, valued people are never treated as expendable.

>  This project needs as many implementations and ideas as
people are willing to put out there. If they can raise the money to
make their design, they should and still be able to call themselves
OSE.

If money is being raised based on the reputation and name of Open Source Ecology, then it seems quite reasonable that Marcin should have a say in how it is allocated and spent.  If they do not want to work with OSE as an organization and abide by it's guidelines, then why call themselves part of OSE?  Groups such as OSE have a group dynamic and culture.  Part of that dynamic is to determine who can be part of the organization and who cannot.  Different groups have different mechanisms to determine inclusiveness.  Ours is based on merit.  Your worth to the group is determined by what you contribute (or how much you take away).  This is a very common paradigm in open source organizations.  Apache is run this way, for example.  Also note that there are degrees of belonging.  Someone who throws out the occasional idea in a forum is one level of contributor.  Another who actively gathers material and enhances the wiki is another.  Someone who puts in significiant time to generate technical designs, drawings, and CAD models is still another.  Etc.  These people are NOT equal in the eyes of OSE as an organization.  Merit equals worth.

>  How will the first community run
if people feel like they are just living on someone else's land, if
they don't feel like they are being listened to.

You are making some pretty major assumptions about how OSE intentional communities will be organized and run.  Help build one and your suggestions are likely to have a lot more merit.

FWIW,  Mark Norton

Well, MJN, that really NEEDS to be posted somewhere people will see it so they know *ahead of time* ALL such information about how this place is run, and the REAL plans for the future.  Given that it conflicts with what is implied elsewhere. 

Contributors absolutely have a right to know this sort of thing early on and are being given entirely the wrong impression.  It's unacceptable to have it squirreled away on the forum or wiki where they will never see it.   And immoral.

In fact, was the information you just shared even anywhere on the wiki or forum at all?  Because I certainly never saw it, and I have been looking for information on this sort of thing!

The opacity of this place goes way to far.  This is no longer about poor management or procrastination about getting things up on the wiki.  This is an abuse of the trust of contributors, the inner circle is doing one thing and implying another.  This is fundamental information we deserve to have right off the bat.

 

@gregor
In an ideal world, we'd have good planning, a roadmap of the future,  a well organized web site that leads people to relevant information, etc.  In practice, we're working on these things while struggled with growth at the same time.

>  Contributors absolutely have a right to know this sort of thing early on
and are being given entirely the wrong impression.

A "right"?  It would be nice, but I don't think there is a constitutional right to know.  We can agree that communication is a good thing.  Keeping people informed prevents upsetting breakdowns.  There is too much to do and not enough people to do it.

>  It's unacceptable to have it squirreled away on the forum or wiki where
they will never see it.   And immoral.

Perhaps I should point out that no matter where such information is posted, it will generally be swallowed up by the massive amount of information now available.  Putting information in the wiki or the forums isn't quite the same as hiding it.  It is not intentionally being obscured.  I would also point out that you are fairly well informed.  You are using the tools provided to find the information that is of interest to you.

>  This is an abuse of the trust of contributors, the inner circle is doing
one thing and implying another.  This is fundamental information we
deserve to have right off the bat.

You are entitled to your opinion, Gregor, but I don't agree with you that abuse is present.  Information is being shared.  Effort is made to make OSE transparent.  Yes, it could be better organized and made more visible but I do think that people are doing the best they can.  Excessive criticism without suggested solutions doesn't help the matter at all.  What would you suggest that OSE do differently?

- Mark

@mjn - I read some of your words and get the feeling that the Marcin you know is different than the Marcin I know.  Who's Marcin is the real one?  Maybe neither is?

Here is a quote from his manifesto:

Marcin said"Since I believe in a decentralized organization, I will not be building a
huge organizational infrastructure that can become an inefficient
bureaucracy. I favor a light and agile structure in the nature of the
distributive, open source ethic."

Personally, my loyalties lie with "the Open Source ethic", not with OSE per se.  If I see that the organization is off track I might decide to go elsewhere.  Furthermore, when I see talent heading out the Open Source door, I feel it's better to have them in another organization than be lost altogether.  Would you not agree?

Above you describe what I would call the standard corporate structure mentality.  It's Marcin's group and he gets to do what he wants.  I see him as a figurehead, not a CEO.  This is crowd funded Open Source.  Skilled people are being encouraged to freely give hundreds of hours of their free time towards lovely goals.  Do you think it is realistic to expect them to operate under a dictator?  Should there not be some sort of committee in place to guide things along?  You know, checks and balances.

When I spoke of the Internet, I meant diversity of paths.  Hit an obstacle, move around it.

Regarding funding, I am trying to find a quote for you but have not had any luck.  But Vann wrote a message that stated clearly that only on site projects would be funded.  If you read Marcin's own manifesto, you will see some reference to how he feels about funding.

http://blog.opensourceecology.org/2011/04/explosion-after-the-online-ted-talk/

At the time, Vann was "on site".  Maybe he can respond to this himself.  Or maybe even Marcin might want to respond.  Wouldn't that be great?

All I have said here is done with the utmost respect for you Mark and the others that are giving freely of their time and knowledge.  This isn't all bad by any stretch.  There are problems however.  I hope we can work them out in good time.

The Dawg

@robotjosh - I can only speak for myself when I say that ideally, the crowd funds should be controlled by "the group".  A discussion regarding what the priorities would be and who would be funded should happen openly.  In an ideal world, a collective would then hand Marcin his allowance. 

So ok, maybe I'm dreaming.  But somewhere in between would be nice.  Marcin should have to sell his ideas and priorities to a collective just like anyone else.

As far as what to fund, I think that any out of pocket expenses should be covered at the very least.  For instance, Mark has put a ton of effort trying to breath some life into the Steam Engine project.  Is he expected to pay out of his pocket for the materials to build the engine?  He may be willing, but it shouldn't be expected.  He's already investing massive amounts of his free time.

I think the people donating money would agree.  For that matter, why don't we ask them?

The Dawg

@Dawg
Really great points. I can think of a couple of ways to address these problems. For one, a monthly budget or account of expenses for the organization would relieve some tension. My aforementioned suggestion of actively making local chapters would help as well as it would delegate a lot power automatically and increase lateral communication.

A good supplement to the current method of raising money would be funding individual projects to fund individual projects with a paypal link on active project pages. There is the issue of projects competing, but you can have an overflow method; just have a proposed amount and have everything beyond that put into the kitty or have the link disabled. The money could be in selected project leaders control. If this method is just used for out of pocket expenses and not to pay salaries it could be very affective for moving projects forward that might otherwise not receive so much attention, but are able to garner a lot of enthusiasm. You could also have 25% into the kitty and %75 into a particular project or have methods to directly donate parts once it is time to build a prototype; for instance making an invoice for pieces of the prototype. That way donors feel more actively involved and way bring in subject matter experts more readily.

@mjn
I think a method of immediately talking to someone in a leadership position without an expectation of accomplishing something or wasting anyone's time would engage a lot of people. Just a now there is a human being on the other side and to get some guidance. I think for non-technical people, having them dive into recruitment and fund-raising is the best option as it requires little or no coordination and is something to do while they gain skills if they are so inclined. Joining a local group could solve this as well and I think it should be encouraged.

I think gregor has a point about using contractors as a means to avoid engaging the community, though maybe that is just an intermediary stage to finish the set. Maybe Marcin figures he will not find people willing to do the work or with the resources to do it.

I don't think the decisions being made are particularly bad for the group or malevolent. I think it is the lack of a strong leadership role that is hurting engagement, transparency, and trust. The power structure is for the most part fine, though a committee would be nice. However, I'm not really sure what kind of communication goes on between Marcin and the project leaders.

What goes bump in the night, so to speak.

The meetup.com idea is good, I've seen it have success before. I think there were some free sites like it being planned years ago, there should some built up by now. If not then a meetup.com account would be good for an OSE organization to fund.

Like rhizomes OSE organizations must spread out at the roots and grow.

The important part of OSE is the idea of it. It is the goals. As long as the goals are shared then all paths will lead to them no matter where someone else starts.

>  I can build it here in the city and flat tow it out to the cheap land I want to build on once I find the land

Not sure if you've looked at land prices lately, but the prices for good agricultural property has been spiraling upwards.  Many new farmers complain that the biggest barrier to entry is the cost of land.  Given current trends, you may want to consider buying the land first and then working your way up to a tractor or CEB.  I have a 15 acre farm that I work with my wife - largely by hand.  We have a small garden tractor, a chipper/shredder, and a rear tine roto-tiller.  Frankly. that's pretty much all of the power equipment we need to grow ALL of our own food.  Furthermore, we could get buy with out them if we had to.

If, on the other hand, you view future farming as a business, it's a very different picture.  Field crops do require equipment like a tractor with implements.  If I were starting a farm as business, I'd research local markets very carefully and look for a niche to be filled.  You will not make money growing corn, soybeans, etc.  You cannot compete against BigAg.  Successful starting farmers these days grow things like organic micro-greens, specialty herbs, free range meat animals, exotic vegetables/fruits/nuts.  Think about your energy needs, too.

Please don't take this as discouragement - I think you are on the right track.  America needs more small farmers.  Speaking of which, check out Small Farm Journal in your local library.  It is a gold mine of info on starting or running a small farm.  It does lean towards farming with draft animals (horses, mules, oxen, etc.), but much info applies to mechanized farm, too.  The main point is that this publication supports the development of small farms everywhere (they have quite an international subscription list).

- Mark

I have, and the costs are impossible. But i'm not looking for "farmable" land, just cheap land, on a pretty darn small area under 10 acres for sure. Small scale intensive farming has raised all the veggies you need for a family of four in 1/10th acre afterall. My plan is to use Square Foot Gardening (which uses a form of 'synthetic' soil, so soil quality doesnt matter) with raised beds inside a greenhouse, and probably aquaponics as well also inside the greenhouse for four seasons food production. At most the land would have to support some grazing animals like a goat, or maybe some chickens outside which get tossed their feed anyways. The need for the tractor, CEB press and the rest of it however is for building the house, road access, doing snow removal, etc. I need the tractor FIRST so I can start building the house from earthblocks as soon as I have access to the land. Because once I have a liveable small house and storage for my stuff I can move out of the expensive city permanently. Alot of the construction will be earth sheltered or partly underground, using an annualized geo solar thermal store so there is no heating or cooling bills. After these major projects i'm hoping to possibly use the tractor to do odd jobs for others once in awhile for some side income when available but by simply allowing me to build my own house it pays for itself already. I can't even rent equipment for what I could build it for when i'm far enough out where the land is cheap here once I factor in transport costs and the fact that I cannot work as fast as others getting maximum use out of the machinery. They want $1000/day for a decent sized dozer.

My interests are primarily growing my own food, once that's stable I would consider exploring some kind of commercial growing... there is a four seasons greenhouse in minnesota that already provides winter produce to some of the organic places. They dont make any money, they about break even. I'm hoping to replicate it with less costs with a different greenhouse design and recycled materials and possibly actually make some money at it.


**See my post on advanced greenhousing under Food if you find what i'm saying here interesting.

While Ive only been part of this community a very short while, I thought I would give my imput on enthusiasm. I find that formyself, to maintain my enthusiasm about something external to myself there needs to be a steady or regular stream of inspiring or enthusiasm generating stimuli. This usually comes in the form of updates, photos or videos about whatever has drawn my iinterest. I am much more likely to donate money or time to something that seems to be moving forward on a day to day basis than something that seems to inch forward month by month. So for me, regular updates (photo or video if possible) are nessesary to maintain enthusiasm.

 Harnessing this enthusiasm once it has been generated is tricky. It is mainly a personal thing and while some people may feel empowered to danate money, many others will be inspired to do something physical about it. The former will obviously help out with the GVCS in terms of finance, but the latter might not so much. Living in a small town in central Ontario I can say I will not be volenteering to build anything in person where OSE is based. And chances are I would not have the finances required to start to build one of the GVCS machines at all. Even with a group of 10-12 people it would not likely be financially viable to build one of the machines from the groud up with all the required testing and prototyping.

 What I CAN do with my enthusiasm is to begin an open source project that is within my means, while drawing inspiration from OSE and the developement of the GVCS. In turn I can update the community and perhaps inspire others with this project. In time when I can connect with other locally we may decide as a group to persue a facet of the GVCS.

Anyways, that is just a bit of insight into my mind at least regarding enthusiasm. You may take it as you will :)

 

Peace!

~Danial

 

I'm finding these comments very interesting. If people can contribute I would think this would only add to the enthusiasm. It's easy for someone that has computer skills that are needed to contribute over the net. I myself being a millwright with lots of fabricating experience which doesn't carry over the net as well. I have diagnosed engine problems over the net with video clips. The whole idea of open source is public contribution. I think there's been great strides made in this department. I hope it will only increase to be all inclusive as much as possible.

>>  Definitely project management.

> It's been tried and largely has failed.

It's fairly simple, actually.  OSE doesn't encourage a project-based approach to new development work.  Rather, development efforts are ad-hoc, short term efforts largely based at Factor e Farm.  Many people have suggested a project based approach and many projects have been started.  The wiki is littered with them.  In general, such efforts are unsustainable because they lack support from central OSE management.  Virtually all decision making for OSE development activity is done by a single person.  That person has a long history of starting and stopping development efforts as setbacks are encountered or new opportunities arise (distractions).  I don't see how it could be otherwise, really, since it is far too much work for one person to do - given that approach.

A project manager almost always exists in the context of some larger organization - usually a company, but also in an open source organization like OSE.  A project manager is trusted by that organization to make decisions regarding priorities, design choices, recruitment, resource allocations (including money), etc.  Historically, such relationships have broken down for OSE projects in the past.  As such, there is little trust in the project process itself.  Until that changes, I have very little hope that project management can make much of difference in OSE development activities.

Open source projects like OSE, in general, are quite dependent on volunteer contributors.  In my opinion, such volunteers need to be nurtured, directed, motivated, and generally cared for.  OSE has a track record of exactly the opposite.  Volunteers are discouraged, rejected, dropped arbitrarily, and generally scorned. Instead, a process of hiring subject matter experts and fabrication houses has been used.  Personally, I see some serious problems in that approach, but as long as there is funding, it can be made to work.  Since it involves considerable expenditures of capital, it will very likely remain under the close control of the OSE Director.

One final thing.  I am a veteran of several, large scale open source software projects.  I have seen how effective a geographically distributed, volunteer based approach to development can be.  I mean successes so large that it would be difficult for a commercial effort to even come close to matching.  During my involvement in OSE, I've come to appreciate that there are some pretty serious differences in hardware development.  Software development is fundamentally an abstract effort.  The end product are text files that can make computers do useful things.  Hardware development is fundamentally a concrete effort.  While the design may be abstract, the result is real - something that you can touch.  The tools and skill sets are extremely different between the two kinds of efforts.  Hardware development requires tools that manipulate atoms, while software manipulates bits.  Energy costs (and thus tooling costs) are substantially different.  The challenge to OSE is to determine how unskilled, unequipped volunteers can be guided to making useful contributions that simplify the task of those who do have skills and tools to make a prototype and eventually a final product.  I have suggested ways to do that, but they have not been accepted or put into effect.

- Mark

I completely understand a desire to withhold resources. It makes sense to want to see some history of experience on the subject of development if not actual proven expertise, before allocating money to the project.

Given the expense of hardware projects, you can't accept the same percentage of failures as you can with software projects. It also makes sense for OSE to be wary of even a single expensive failure at this early stage. The only hope for a project this large and novel to succeed is if it can satisfy the skeptics at every stage, the first few being the most important. Most people, particularly most of the engineers and accountants who are so important to this project, are going to assume it will fail. OSE needs accountants because it needs money and it needs engineers because it needs machines. Neither of those groups are known for their desire to take risks. They're going to carefully analyze what OSE produces; going over it with a fine-toothed-comb looking for evidence of malice and/or incompetence. If they find a hint of either, they won't support OSE, and without resources like money and expertise it willl die.

...and that's not even touching on the idea that the two groups most important to OSE's effectiveness are likely to be threatened by that success.

So, that being the case, I completely understand the approach of collecting donations and then hiring experts to produce the promised results. If I had 100K, and OSE asked for it, I probably wouldn't belive them if they said a hoard of unaccountable, untrained volunteers could produce a universal power supply (a vision that has elluded well-funded experts for some time).

But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't keep trying to find a way to organize an open source hardware project that is a little more 2.0 than just buying the required experts time and releasing whatever they produce under a creative commons license.

Personally, I think either a program or a suit of programs is going to have to be at the center of any solution.  The only reason open source even exists as a philosophy is that people used shared programs to collaborate over the internet. We need a hardware design program.

There is some good thinking here, Matt.  I like your characterization of the levels that people can contribute on.  Commitment levels are also a good thing to understand.

I I understand what you say correctly, you suggest that professionals can be hired to provide high-skill labor and volunteers can be leveraged to back-fill and support them.  While I agree, I think that there will need to be a strong organization and management structure in place if this is to succeed.  This is especially true when hiring professionals.  Work to be done should be designed in detail (if possible, though that may be what's being bought), a contract should be drawn up that specifies what is to be done, by when, and for how much.  In my opinion, this is an area where OSE needs to improve and may well be the reason this approach has broken down in the past.

I also think that organizational structure is needed to manage volunteer labor.  There needs to be someone who's task it is to guide new comers, get them up to speed, and guide them into the process of contributing.  Given the amount of activity planned for 2012, such a facilitator role will be essential (IMO) if we are to leverage volunteer contributions.  Generally, the people working on projects are too busy to figure out how to use new people, even if there is a need for them.

To be fair, I have seen signs in the past few days of improvements to the OSE organization.  Some of this is around the GVCS 0.1 release and some of it is planning for the 2012 development push.  More is needed, especially in area of contract management.

- Mark

@Metz  I assume you sent those letters to Marcin.  While I do not represent him directly, I believe that he's under a lot of self-imposed pressure to get the OSE-Xmas-Gift-to-the-World out.  Since part of that "gift" are the tractor plans, a bit of patience is in order.

Recently (like in the past few days), Marcin has called for people to step forward as project managers for various OSE projects.  Mike Apostel has volunteered to serve as the LifeTrac project leader.  You want to communicate with him to see how your efforts might be of use to that particular OSE project.

- Mark

I suppose it comes down to the question, "who's allowed to make decisions?" If the DVD 0.01 release is any indication the core OSE project group has bitten off more than they can chew. If the group of people allowed to make decisions is so small they can't meet their self-imposed deadlines then there's no way they're going to handle outsiders.

That doesn't mean they're poorly organized, it just means they aren't communicating clearly. For example, I was asked to do some video editing but only one of the videos I found links for was even open for editing (remixing) and that one was so straight forward it didn't need editing. My assumption is that there was a breakdown in communication somewhere.

The ironworker competition is another good example. After reading everything I could find a couple times I'm still not entirely clear what the general public was being asked for help on. I assume that has a lot to do with why the grabCAD page doesn't have any entries; no one's sure what is being designed. That and the fact they offered a t-shirt and the chance to move bricks around when all the other competitions offer hard cash prizes. The mediocre prizes strongly implies that OSE just wants a design for a shear blade...but they also secified that the open source ironworker should use a commercially available blade...so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think the overall issue is one of communication. If they actually are interested in getting help from outsiders then, at a minimum, they need to designate someone as being qualified to communicate on behalf of the official project. Someone who won't ignore emails because they're too busy with something else.

There is, of course, always the possibility that the core group simply isn't interested in volunteer effort. They might not trust the investment of resources in non-professionals. That would make a certain amount of sense :/

@danielravennest - I think it would be a great asset to have satellite groups around the OSE group in Missouri. There may also be another group that we can contact to bring in a more tangible local presence and whose ideals largely mesh with the open source concept. The group is called Transition Towns.
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
An environmental group in my town that I am a part of just decided to make the shift into the transition network and there are many people who are interested in OSE and the GVCS. We are only a small group but many of the larger and more established transition groups have more members with a more varied skill set then my own group (mostly gardeners). Has anyone contacted the Transition Network from OSE in a formal or informal manner regarding bringing the OSE ideas to the network? Many of these groups are quite well established with members being within close proximity to each other, and with pooled resources.
I think it would be a great idea to have a list of contacts setup somewhere for people who are looking for local fellow open source enthusiasts.

Regarding Transition Network (or Transition Town), you may want to see some wiki pages of people with connections to it, or other pages that mention "transition town".

Yeah...maybe you should retire. He seems to be looking for "retired professionals." 
http://blog.opensourceecology.org/2012/02/project-progress-and-scaling/