Talk:Existing Open Source Design Repositories: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "---- Hi Marcin, Saw your page start at http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Existing_Open_Source_Design_Repositories comparing repos for "taggable content mining". While content m...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
1. '''End user'''. | 1. '''End user'''. | ||
Needs clear access to a complete vetted product design (a "release") | Needs clear access to a complete vetted product design (a "release") | ||
with most emphasis on manufacturing CAM files, fabrication and | with most emphasis on specs, bill of materials, manufacturing drawings/CAM files, fabrication and | ||
assembly instructions, videos, and "knowledge base" of field | assembly instructions, videos, and "knowledge base" of field | ||
experience/fixes. Visible to web search - Googlable - so that | experience/fixes. Visible to web search - Googlable - so that | ||
Latest revision as of 17:18, 10 December 2012
Hi Marcin,
Saw your page start at http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Existing_Open_Source_Design_Repositories comparing repos for "taggable content mining".
While content minability is an important feature, I wonder whether you are also evaluating repo candidates for OSE to use (I know you consider github's features to be lacking) I am thinking of three classes of users that need to be served (although specific individuals may of course occupy more than one role)
1. End user. Needs clear access to a complete vetted product design (a "release") with most emphasis on specs, bill of materials, manufacturing drawings/CAM files, fabrication and assembly instructions, videos, and "knowledge base" of field experience/fixes. Visible to web search - Googlable - so that potential users unaware of the project are likely to find it. Similar to the target user of "instructables", for example?
2. Contributor. Usually working on a subcomponent of a larger project with a small number of close collaborators. Needs to share intermediate development files, participate in focussed conversations (bugtracker style). Rapid, repeated, share/test/revise cycles with fine-grained revision management.
3. Project Manager. Corrals contributors, monitors progress, directs development & test priorities, decisionmaker on vetting "releases" to expose to end users.
Parallels between hardware and software project management are obvious, perhaps Shuttleworth/Canonical contacts can weigh in with expert opinions?
ChuckH 17:42, 10 December 2012 (CET)