Collaborative Waste: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
#Doing critical contributions only, not derivative ones, and phasing progress. For ex, CAD is king as the deliverable; an exploded part diagram may be in a subsequent phase (User Manual Phase). | #Doing critical contributions only, not derivative ones, and phasing progress. For ex, CAD is king as the deliverable; an exploded part diagram may be in a subsequent phase (User Manual Phase). | ||
==Direction Solutions== | |||
#''Build it and show us the data'' puts a quick resulution of design debate | |||
=Judging= | =Judging= | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 9 August 2019
- By [1] - 12 issues of open source - https://opensource.com/life/14/6/12-challenges-open-source-projects
Solutions
- Establishing a standard for code submissions
- requiring acceptance of a common license
- implementing peer review are three ways in which good open source projects help to mitigate the risk of problematic code.
- For HeroX - update videos for contributions. Rewarding your contributions. You MUST inform people of your work, and allow them to contribute
Scope Solutions
- Modular breakdown to as many small pieces as possible
- Doing critical contributions only, not derivative ones, and phasing progress. For ex, CAD is king as the deliverable; an exploded part diagram may be in a subsequent phase (User Manual Phase).
Direction Solutions
- Build it and show us the data puts a quick resulution of design debate
Judging
- Judging and peer review can be combined. You get rewarded for working on winning versions. This forces you to contribute to something that you deem worthy - which is a form of peer review. If you work on a dead end, sorry but no cigar.