[Discuss] open hardware documentation survey

Catarina Mota catarina at openmaterials.org
Tue Mar 26 14:22:34 UTC 2013

Well said Matt.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect that once we figure out what we need it will be easy to discover
> several pre-existing software tools that either already do exactly that, or
> can easily be forked to do exactly that.
> The problem is that we don't know what we need.
> That's where the committee comes in. We need to get some stakeholders into
> a room and hash out a mutually agreeable prioritization of requirements.
> There is little point in discussing specific "hows" until we have some
> consensus on "what."
> For example, the STEP file format is indeed a standard for exchanging
> product information, but it's copyrighted and has a massive amount of
> overhead. I doubt even OSE is doing any project big enough to justify that
> much complexity. A giant, complicated format like STEP could obviously
> describe simple projects, but it would also create a huge barrier to entry
> due to all of the complexity that is only there for complex projects. Since
> most open hardware projects are simple, or at least striving for
> simplicity, STEP might be kind of like hiring a marching band to follow you
> around and play a song when you get a new text message.
> Or maybe the complexity is worthwhile, or doesn't matter, and my personal
> impression of the situation is inaccurate. The best way to find out is to
> compare it to a bunch of other people's impressions so we can come up with
> a generally applicable solution, not just a solution to my specific problem.
> At any rate, the discussion has to happen before any implementation makes
> sense.
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:41:19 AM UTC-6, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Matthias Bock <ma... at matthiasbock.net>
>> wrote:
>> > In order for a repository project to be successfull, a group of people
>> -
>> > with equal rights
>> > to decide what to do, should be organized. Only this way, users can be
>> sure
>> I think it would be better to show a prototype that works. Not a
>> commercial product, but just a small package manager that actually
>> manages packages. Maybe something based on opkg. If you want something
>> made by committee, just stick with ISO 10303 (which, for whatever
>> reason, nobody seems to know about... wtf).
>> - Bryan
>> http://heybryan.org/
>> 1 512 203 0507
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130326/332c8761/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list