[Discuss] Proposal: Open Source Hardware Score/Index

Pablo Kulbaba pablokulbaba at gmail.com
Tue Feb 24 23:15:21 UTC 2015

On the validation via a community or a specific group of people, maybe 
the initial open community can provide a seedstock to raise educated 
people to form a later trusted group of people that gives an ulterior 

PD: Had to search JSON.

On 24/02/2015 08:00 p.m., Mario Gómez wrote:
> @jeff:
> That's great! It can even work both ways: If you already have a JSON 
> you can provide the URL to automatically calculate the indicator for 
> your project and vice versa: if you complete the questionnaire it 
> could automatically generate the JSON file that you can include in 
> your project as you propose that would be easy to do.
> Sadly I'm a little busy this week but let me see if I can program a 
> functional prototype so we can experiment how it could work for the 
> next month. (I would not mind if someone else wants to help)
> @Javier:
> I personally like the idea of the community, because if the process is 
> straight forward, verifiable and transparent what matters is the 
> result of the evaluation system and not the person/group of persons 
> doing the evaluation. This is assuming that the evaluation system 
> provides means to minimize/prevent abuses (That's why I consider 
> important to also implementing a meta-evaluation system).
> However... being certified from a trusted group of people it's really 
> important and I think that the OSHWA could be an appropriate group to 
> do that. But let's hear more opinions, I think that it's possible to 
> build something simple that helps people to follow the OSHW philosophy 
> in their projects.
> Regards,
> Mario.
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org 
> <mailto:jeff at publiclab.org>> wrote:
>     I really like this idea!
>     Somewhat related is this idea from chatting with Alicia Gibb a few
>     months ago, of a contributors.json file which would fulfill (with
>     links, short descriptions, etc) all the terms of the OSH definition.
>     I finally typed up the idea and our sample format here:
>     http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json
>     Love to hear input. Perhaps the questionnaire could generate such
>     a file. At Public Lab, it'd be interesting for the file to be
>     auto-generated from our tool wiki pages. The nice part about it is
>     that it's not specifying a way of browsing or aggregating projects
>     (as other folks are exploring that space) but specifies a standard
>     way to make the relevant/required information available for such
>     projects to scrape/consume. Also, it's easy enough to write by
>     hand and include in a github repository.
>     Best,
>     Jeff
>     On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Javier Serrano
>     <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch <mailto:Javier.Serrano at cern.ch>> wrote:
>         Mario, I think this is a great idea. I see this can play a
>         role in the
>         solution to one of the biggest problems of OSHW: how to make sure
>         developers have more incentives to publish their work. Economic
>         incentives in particular. An OSHW label could give (more)
>         prestige to
>         developers who hold it and induce purchaser-driven growth of
>         OSHW. We
>         are already seeing that prestige is a big element in the
>         success of OSHW
>         companies. A well advertised and supported label or mark could
>         enlarge
>         the population of savvy customers.
>         On 02/24/2015 05:58 PM, Mario Gómez wrote:
>         > The idea is that the community validates if you are telling
>         the  truth.
>         > To prevent abuse a meta-validation system could be
>         implemented were you
>         > can "evaluate the evaluators" to see if their are being fair
>         on their
>         > evaluations.
>         One alternative is to entrust the OSHWA with that role.
>         "Community" is a
>         vague term. If I have to trust someone on whether a piece of
>         software is
>         free software I will trust the FSF over the "community" any
>         day. One way
>         of doing it would be through a creative use of marks or
>         labels, in the
>         vein of what OHANDA [1] proposes. See also the work of the
>         Wikimedia
>         Foundation [2] in this regard. In this scenario, developers have a
>         natural incentive to not misuse the mark, because they can be
>         sued with
>         all the arsenal of trademark law if they do.
>         Cheers,
>         Javier
>         [1] http://www.ohanda.org/
>         [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy
>         _______________________________________________
>         discuss mailing list
>         discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>         http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>     http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150224/9c404484/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list