I don't know.
I haven't been involved in planning the GVCS50, so how couldI answer Your question? :-o
Mike
..." Source
Rabert wrote:
FeF and Marcin are not service providers and you should not be idea consumers. Be active and move, do something, create and build, find friends and collaborators. That is the only thing what can change the world. You don't need Marcin or FeF for that.
Hy Rabert,
in general You are right in calling for more individual activities by people with interest in OSE. But I disagree strongly with the statement that FeF and Marcin are no service providers.
There are hundreds or even maybe more than thousand true fans with monthy contributions to OSE. And there are institutions and foundations with several large donations to OSE. So of course OSE owes to provide some service, some performance in exchange.
Me personally have never studied OSE financial affairs in detail, but its obvious that during the last years a very significant amout of cash has been given to OSEs and Marcins hands. So it should be OSEs duty to deliver real efforts and results.
IMO results are poor compared to the available budget, though I'm willing too recognize that it's a difficult task to develop something like a GVCS50. Nevertheless the level of craftmanship and engineering isn't satisfying yet.
OSE and FeF have shown efforts to do their task. But a lot of poor management, misorganization and personal conflicts have wasted personnal and financial resources, so it can be said that OSE could have done better during the last years. Marcin has visions and has done a good PR job in the past, but wasting a lot of resources is no merit for a leader. Even worse, if informations about wasteful management get to the eyes and ears of those who decide which organization gets donations, the future flow of money might be shrinking drastically.
I'm pretty sure the current organization and management model of OSE isn't fit at all for the future.
Mike
Links to nowhere that were supposed to illustrate Stefan's and Michael's various points.
Who is Molly? Who is Inga? Who is Ben? Who is Jeremy? What are the backgrounds of all these various people? Stefan argues with Michael Bauwens until the thread ends, like an inflexible person. Basically impossible to understand these forum threads and blog entries, due to lack of information. Arcosanti is not an open source project, so they aren't comparing like things either. Clare Graves doesn't seem relevant to the logic of the overall post.
What analysis is there concerning the video about CEB wall review, which apparently dispels certain notions? Perhaps the banning shouldn't be permanent, if at all, but what do Howard and David currently think about the CEB wall video? The guy claims it was a different part of the wall, which it may be, but I currently don't see much evidence for this. If I were Marcin, I would try to reconcile issues with Agnew, or at least document in detail why it's not possible- b/c "damage to OSE" seems higher, given this thread, than not doing so. Simply being critical of something is not grounds for banning, I think.
Not saying I've made up my mind about this already, but I am entirely confused, and really need more information about this to draw any conclusions. Trying to stay away from arguments based on speculations, since I have never been there, nor for any extended time and definitely cannot simply "see what you guys are talking about".
This page is dedicated to constructive banter on the advantages and disadvantages of Agile Development compared to Waterfall Development
techniques. It seems like people push too hard one way or the other
usually, and suffer from over structure and under structure. -- Marcin
(presumably)
\- Marcin isn't doing (or evidently understands) either, hence
this ignorant critique about structure, which doesn't actually mean
anything. "Structure"? Be specific.
What he's really doing is something more along the lines of
haphazard micromanagement: i.e., whatever comes to mind now is the
current fire to put it out, and don't trust your teams to make design
decisions, but only to do rote work. It seems he thrives off of a
constant state of crisis and working (just a little) on too many
projects at once. This results in high turnover and burns people out,
slow progress, poor designs, and chaos. Both the wiki and the physical
FeF site represent this state of chaos and disorganization.
The reason Marcin objects to Agile is because, if he is just a
stakeholder on a project, he would have no say in how something is
accomplished. He could only set high level user stories (the what). If
he sees how determining success criteria will guarantee that his values
are represented in the project, he doesn't trust the team to do it. And
if he were a team member on the project rather than a stakeholder, he'd
have no authority over other team members, and would have to convince
team members to adopt a design on its own merit. And we can see from
the results here that designs have not been adopted on their merit (more
below).
The reason Marcin objects to Waterfall is because he intuitively
sees that something is learned in the development process, and he wants
to be able to change designs as they occur to him. He doesn't want to
spend weeks writing a spec, then weeks more writing a design document,
and then sticking to it for months or years as these steps are followed,
which is what waterfall would dictate.
While work does eventually get done, this haphazard method
doesn't bring about good results. While Wikispeed, which uses Agile
methods (which he ironically calls the "hero" method, which is closer to
what he uses), designed a production ready car in 6 months, Marcin, who
uses no professional method, is on the 4th or 5th iteration of the
LifeTrac which is unable to perform the basic functions of a tractor,
and certainly does not exceed industry standards. He designed a Hablab
that few want to live in, and with R50 hay bail walls, yet so fails in
its passive cooling design that he's now resorting to attaching a window
a/c unit so we'll have at least one cool room (and thereby defeating
the entire purpose of a passive design). The point with these examples
is to illustrate that the current method of crisis management does not
work well. Had either Waterfall or Agile been followed on these (and
other) projects, experts would have been hired or consulted, and either
results measured against specs (Waterfall) or against success criteria
at each iteration (Agile), and we'd be in a better state than we are
today. Instead, things are just done haphazardly.
In short, this discussion isn't about Agile vs waterfall, but a
mask for the real issue: Marcin loosening up control, and learning to
trust his teams to use any professional management method.
Comment has been hidden until an Official announcement can be made by OSE.
Hi Mark, this citation from my post was no critics against You. It was just an example of OSE projects that have been started severl times, and abandoned several times. Like other GVCS projects. A lot of time has beeninvested in the steam project, and the outcome are just some sketches. And I don't expect much more results from the steam engine project in the near future.
I know very well of Your concerns about the safety of high pressure steam, and Your concerns are reasonable. But are You sure You don't overestimate the risks of a steam engine itself? I'm talking only about the engine, not about the boiler or steam generator !
Steam power has taken a death toll during the last 2 centuries. But a closer look at these accidents will probably show that most serious accidents were caused by boiler failures, not by engine failures.The great volumes of boilers are responsible for disastrous results if they burst. The engines itself are low-risk parts compared to boilers, their failure only occasionally has caused fatal consequences. Important parts of steam engines are designed to withstand high dynamic forces during operation, and usually can withstand the forces of steam pressure easily. Maybe some moving parts in a steam engine can break but consequences, risks are limited to a very small area. Boilers/steam generators with their large volumes are responsible for fatal accidents; not steam engines itself.
And boilers are targeted by regulations, not steam engines usually worldwide.
Mike
Hi Daniel,
a very interesting project. It made for an interesting read!
The concept insn't bad, though I think the starter set is a bit too small.
Some comments on several points, that came to my mind while reading.
1. Sawing?
I think You need a machine like a saw. Something that cuts longitudinal structures like steel bars and wood boards to length. Its often the only operation on raw material needed to make it to a part ready for assembly.
2. Process plant
At current I still think You will need pretty different plant setups for different kinds of materials. I would consider metals, plastics, wood and minerals as different materials with different needs in production. Okay, wood production is biological, we just need to cut it. But plastics, minerals and metals require very different processes.
Maybe its possible to define a very complex set of components which fulfills all needs, but prob defining different sets for completely different materials would be easier and more economic
3. Bridge Mill
A double column mill, its a good versatile concept. But, its nonsense to do things like torch and laser cutting on the same machine as machining, milling, boring. The rigidity and precision needed for a mill is much higher than for a torch cutter.
And torch, plasma or laser cutting would destroy the high precision table of a milling machine. Forget this combination.
4. Grinding machinery
The absence of grinding machines won't work. Cylindrical grinders are essential for bearings and many other parts, as are bedway grinding machines for precision machines like lathes and mills.
5. Assembly
Your concept isn't convincing for Assembly. It's still a job mostly performed by humans. And Your concept overestimates the importance of machinery and roboters in the near future. Assembling is a difficult and very diversified task and roboters's capabilities aren't yet up to this task. Consider assembly an important and difficult task and give humans their place in this job. They are still urgently needed !
Mike
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!