Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Best way to engage communities to build #1

Open
amchagas opened this issue Mar 4, 2019 · 13 comments
Open

Best way to engage communities to build #1

amchagas opened this issue Mar 4, 2019 · 13 comments
Assignees
@amchagas @johav @emdupre @vektorious @thessaly

Comments

@amchagas
Copy link
Member

amchagas commented Mar 4, 2019

We managed to get a small extra grant to actually build tools based on the survey results!
The idea right now is:

  • Get the results of the survey and elect local communities as "project leads" (10 project leads seem doable).

  • setup a time frame to work on (most likely now is May-June 2019)

  • each community would be responsible for developing a piece of hardware. They commit to following a documentation template (as well as a repository template) so that other people can easily contribute and onboard

  • each community gets a small amount of money for buying supplies and developing their project

  • we do weekly check ins with the communities to see how development is going, and to help iron out issues early on

  • All communities come together online at the end of the time frame for "show and tell" and to celebrate the efforts.

Ideas and suggestions on this are super welcome!
@thessaly
Copy link

thessaly commented Mar 4, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Woohoo! Congrats :D

Which pieces of hardware would be developed? Should we start a list of good projects?

Can we refine the 'community' concept a bit? Are there any requirements from the funding? (academic, non academic, in any geographical areas, size of team, with history of FOSH development, etc?)

@emdupre
Copy link

emdupre commented Mar 5, 2019

Congratulations on the award !!! ✨ 🚀

Just wanted +1 @thessaly 's questions on refining the eligibility. It would be great to make sure you're either tapping into or helping build real communities for further FOSH development -- thinking through questions like these will help with that goal !

@vektorious
Copy link

Yes congrats!

Can we redefine the time frame? I won't be available from May-August and am incredible sad now 😢

Apart from that I think this sounds great!

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Mar 6, 2019

Thanks for the input everyone!

@vektorious : unfortunately not! The money has to be used before the end of my fellowship which is end June.

@thessaly:

The hardware to be developed would depend on the results of the survey. I'm thinking if we can engage 10 different groups to build (more on the groups below), we can have the 10 most requested pieces of hardware to be developed by those groups.

Community/groups:
There are in principle no restrictions for what groups/communities can participate. But given time constraints and the scope of this project, I would give preference for the ones that have a track record in building/documenting things. Other than that I didn't think in any restrictions, selection criteria and would appreciate if you could share ideas, suggestions, experiences!

@thessaly
Copy link

thessaly commented Mar 7, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Cool! I'm already super curious about those survey results!

The community selection thing kinda depends on what the aim of the project is:

a- if it's to take OScHw to places where there was none before, then communities selected shouldn't have experience, the focus is in the learning and how to make it reproducible;

b- If it's to test how a particular design is adapted locally to different contexts, then you need communities with experience in building; the focus is on the hacking they do of the original model, new ideas and materials.

If it's a) the process involves some kind of learning tools, materials, etc that IMHO exceed the time frame of this project.

If it's b), makes more sense, and you can have the teams doing a) in their local contexts once this project is finished.

Some criteria? It's restrictive but there's always time to be flexible:

  • some experience in building hardware
  • have some teams from outside traditional academic contexts (maybe publish it in sites like hackaday or similar).
  • Maybe a min of 3 in the group, with different backgrounds
  • Not men-only groups, for me it's a basic one
  • Something I learned from a similar project (but not with hardware)... People that have already worked together in something is usually preferred

The templating we're discussing in the other issue becomes super relevant , so we can capture the lessons from these experiences once the project ends... It has to be flexible enough to show the 'flavors' of the local teams.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense, you're warned :D

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Mar 8, 2019 •
edited
Loading

(edit 18/03/2019: fixed broken link as reported by @thessaly )
I also think we are more on the b) case. But not only to test how an existing design can be adapted to local realities. Rather I think it will be a specific team task to evaluate what is available out there and decide is adapting/upgrading an existing design is the way to go, or if building from scratch is what is best.

I think your criteria are good! and so are the rest of the comments :)

I created a new criteria.md to hash out thoughts and come up with the guidelines for group selection. I'll try to work a bit more on it over the next days. Feel free to add more ideas/suggestions here, or directly there!

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

Hi,
I updated the file and added information about application process.
If you have time, have a look and let me know what you think!

@thessaly
Copy link

Hi @amchagas link is broken here is the file

Sounds good! I'd make a bit more clear that we're aiming for groups to build open hardware for science. Anyway, I wouldn't limit the 'experience with building hw' criteria to science hw (maybe someone who has already built other things wants to try). So I would leave the criteria as it is.

What we can do is add a bit of an introduction. What is this project about? Why are we interested in open science hardware? So people can understand better where this comes from? Also knowing it's a Mozilla project aligns you with Mozilla values that are afterwards reinforced in the criteria. We can incorporate the GOSH definition, it's wide enough to contemplate many cases.

Too much bla bla from my side, should I make chgs in the file and make a pull request?

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Mar 18, 2019 via email

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Apr 2, 2019

Hi all,
I made a first draft of the application form for this event. Comments and suggestions are again more than welcome!

http://ec2-3-17-144-2.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/index.php/148539?lang=en

@vektorious
Copy link

vektorious commented Apr 8, 2019 via email

@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Apr 8, 2019

Hi Alex,

thanks for the feedback.
Yes, the name entering system is not the best, but it was the only way I could think off for an "unlimited" team number. Maybe a smart idea would be to limit teams to 10 people and have an easier form to fill.

I'll change things around a bit and see how they work...

1 similar comment
@amchagas
Copy link
Member Author

amchagas commented Apr 9, 2019

Hi Alex,

thanks for the feedback.
Yes, the name entering system is not the best, but it was the only way I could think off for an "unlimited" team number. Maybe a smart idea would be to limit teams to 10 people and have an easier form to fill.

I'll change things around a bit and see how they work...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@amchagas amchagas

@johav johav

@emdupre emdupre

@vektorious vektorious

@thessaly thessaly

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@amchagas @johav @emdupre @vektorious @thessaly and others