[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]