[ox-en] Re: Report from OKCon 2011
Daniel Dietrich <[email protected]> Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:29:04 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.politics.oekonux.english |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear Stefan Thanks for this feedback. We will definitely take your point in to account when drafting documentation page for planning upcoming okcons. Regards Daniel On 01.07.2011, at 18:55, Stefan Merten wrote: > Hi list! > > I'm just going home from `OKCon 2011`_ in Berlin. I have to say it was > really a great conference and I'm really happy that I were there. > Knowing what organizing conferences like this means I'd like to say a > big thank you to the organizers. > > I don't have exact numbers but would think that about 200 people > attended the conference. > > The conference was rather big in terms of program. For two days there > were five parallel tracks from 10:00-20:00. A regular slot for a > presentation was only 30 minutes unfortunately so beyond some > superficial questions there was no room to discuss the things > presented. Also there were no time in the schedule between the > sessions so it was always a hurry to change rooms. As a result > everyone was in a constant hurry which made it difficult to talk to > each other. > > Well, critique aside. As I said the conference was really great. The > program_ did not contain only OKFN core topics but for instance had > many presentations about Open Hardware. I attended some of them and > for me they were the most exciting ones. > > Since this conference I'm convinced that the Open Hardware stuff will > be the next big thing in peer production. I'm watching peer production > since twelve years now and this branch of peer production is gaining > more and more momentum during the last years. There seem to be really > a lot of hackers out there who really want to hack that mechanical > stuff. > > When I compare the current state of what I see in Open Hardware > movement with the history of Free Software then I'd say we are > somewhere around 1987. I.e. the Linux kernel has not yet been invented > and it's still twelve years until the general breakthrough of this > stuff. I'm really curious what will happen here. > > What really strikes me is that very similar to Free Software the Open > Hardware movement starts with building the basic tools from which more > Open Hardware can be built. Remember that very early GNU software was > Emacs (an editor - well at least it can also be used as an editor > ;-) ) and the GCC (a C compiler - a very basic tool to compile C > programs into machine language) with the accompanying toolset. These > are both very complex programs which are needed to write software - > proprietary and Free alike. For both tools it took time since they > matured. > > Another interesting parallel which I learned about is this. Remember > GNU/Linux 15 years ago. It existed and you could install it but it > still was better you understood what you are doing. This is no longer > the case for many years now - nowadays every idiot can install say > Ubuntu on a normal computer and ends up with a running system. I > always argued that such a dynamic is possible because in software you > can automate things and this way obsolete special user abilities. I > think this type of dynamic is a very important feature to make a > family of peer products successful. However, I thought that this is a > special feature of software. > > Today I learned that similar things are possible with mechanics. In > his presentation Lieven Standaert briefly compared the RepRap with the > MakerBot. Although it is possible to build a RepRap it takes weeks to > build and to fine-tune it so it gets close to some precision without > which the whole thing makes no sense. The parts of the MakerBot on the > other hand are created by a laser cutter which has itself a very high > precision. This high precision is "inherited" to the parts so it's > easy to quickly build a pretty precise machine even for a laymen. This > quite closely resembles the dynamic I described above for software: > you can design things in a way that obsoletes special user abilities. > Being not an engineer I wonder whether this type of dynamic is > applicable more generally or whether this is possible only in rare > instances like this. > > I didn't take notes during the presentations but the slides from most > presentations were pretty good so you may check them out when they are > online (which I guess will happen at some point). > > Here are the presentation and talks I attended and I found remarkable > with some short comments: > > * `From Openness to Abundance`_ by Glyn Moody > > * `Implementing an Open Data programme within government`_ by Andrew > Stott > > Andrew gave a very good idea of what it means to implement an Open > Data policy in government. > > * `Global open data: a threat or saviour for democracy?`_ by Chris > Taggart > > * `Scholarly Publishing Reform: What Needs to Change?`_ by Björn > Brembs > > Björn gave us an interesting insight in how the current scholary > rating works - and how flawed it is. Björn also gave some idea of > what needs to be changed. This may be of special interest for CSPP. > > * `Structural changes of the information economy – Google Books as a > Blueprint?`_ by Jeanette Hofmann > > Jeanette gave us some very good insights into Google Books and how > it changes the way of using books. One only can hope that this will > not be the blueprint of information economy. > > * `The emergence of a free culture movement`_ by Mayo Fuster Morell > > Mayo interprets the things going on around free culture as a social > movement. In her talk she highlighted similarities and differences > between classical social movements and this social movement. > > I found it interesting to see things this way. As you may know my > approach is to see this movement more as the new "class" which is > already part of the new society. Its main interest in this society > is to support their own interests. This is similar to the early > capitalists which supported their own interests in the feudal > system. They were more part of the upcoming form of society than the > feudal one. I guess it was just as difficult to classify these early > capitalists in terms of feudal notions as it is today for the peer > production "movement". I talked to Mayo afterwards and I understood > that basically she agrees with this perspective. > > * `We are the Creators!`_ by Till Kreutzer > > Certainly Till's presentation was one of the most entertaining ones > because he gave us some funny videos of mixing culture. Beyond this > Till gave interesting insights in how copyright and the need to > license stuff prevents culture to flourish. He finished with some > suggestions on what needs to be changed on copyright. The most basic > measure would be to change the focus from the rights of the creators > to the rights of the public. > > * `Developing open & distributed tools for Fablab project > documentation`_ by Anu Määttä > > One of the main ideas of Fablabs is that you can produce designs you > find elsewhere. Anu gave us some insights in the difficulties on how > to organize a proper documentation so this is actually possible. She > also presented solutions to this problem. > > * `Repairable machines: lessons learned developing open hardware`_ by > Lieven Standaert > > That was the session I talked about above. Check out `Lieven's > website`_ (link is from my memory so might be wrong). > > * `Open data as business model`_ by John Sheridan > > Instead of what the title suggests John gave us reasons why there is > a need for a business model for high quality government data: Cuts > in public budget which make it increasingly difficult to have high > quality Open government Data. He argues that for this it is > necessary to develop a business model to fund creation of high > quality Open government Data. > > Unfortunately I had to leave so I missed presentations from Benjamin > Mako Hill, Stefan Meretz and Christian Siefkes. @Mako, StefanMz, > Christian: May be you can tell us about your presentations here. > > Well, I also have to say that if I see the level of the more > theoretical discussion on the conference the level we reached here on > Oekonux is still quite ahead... > > > Grüße > > Stefan > > .. _OKCon 2011: http://okcon.org/2011/ > > .. _program: http://okcon.org/2011/programme > > .. _From Openness to Abundance: http://okcon.org/2010/programme/from-openness-to-abundance > > .. _Implementing an Open Data programme within government: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/implementing-an-open-data-programme-within-government > > .. _`Global open data: a threat or saviour for democracy?`: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/global-open-data-a-threat-or-saviour-for-democracy > > .. _`Scholarly Publishing Reform: What Needs to Change?`: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/scholarly-publishing-reform-what-needs-to-change > > .. _Structural changes of the information economy – Google Books as a Blueprint?: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/structural-change-in-the-information-economy-in-the-shadow-of-copyright > > .. _The emergence of a free culture movement: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/the-emergence-of-a-free-culture-movement > > .. _We are the Creators!: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/we-are-the-creators > > .. _Developing open & distributed tools for Fablab project documentation: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/developing-open-distributed-tools-for-fablab-project-documentation > > .. _`Repairable machines: lessons learned developing open hardware`: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/repairable-machines-lessons-learned-developing-open-hardware > > .. _Lieven's website: http://www.repairablemachines.org/ > > .. _Open data as business model: http://okcon.org/2011/programme/open-data-as-business-model _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: [email protected]