Probably something to do with coconuts then.
GROLScH - Global Residencies for Open and Local Science Hardware.
Seems that c is coming in everywhere.
just came back from my trip to Sumatra (indonesia), Taiwan, Hong Kong and Shenzhen, discussing with various potential partners about the above mentioned ideas. let me summarize it all soon.
still travelling and will have time to reflect and write by next week.
Firstly, Fora Temer.
Maybe some of this values should be guaranteed priory voting, for exemple: 51% of the projects should be running by a women, or 30% should be running on developing countries, etc.
We should also discuss what to do when there isn’t enough submissions from these aspects (or if there too bad), or when there are not reasonable ( “local participants will be mostly from the same country”).
How will we check if the output is really open? That was properly documented?
I suggest we centralize this documentation (on this forum, maybe), at least the links for the documentation, and that we determine an extra time for documentation, after the end of the node (2/3 of the total time of the node?).
I also think we should ask for a video explaining the output (1 min), videos are more sharable, will help us spread the word of GOSH
@marinappdf yes the values discussion is really important.
It didn’t occur to me that the values should be applied to the voting, though I see where you’re coming from there and I see that the selection process should be representative of the community and of the community we’re aspiring to be.
It seems to me that organizers’ primary mechanism to uphold GOSH values is through the selection process of those attending the main event (which includes 50% women/gender non-conforming, 33% local country, etc. etc.). With those rules in place we really have very little discretionary control, especially now that those rules are set, without community input IMO. This selection process to the main GOSH event is our primary ‘lever’ to maintain continuity and the culture within the community. But my feeling is that the community, which has been selected through an equitable process, is then responsible as equal members to make the best choices. So in short - because it was selected with consideration for equity and context, I guess I trust that group to make the right decisions with appropriate consideration for context and equity.
I do think we could support better voter decisionmaking by highlighting those elements we think are important as separate questions in the project submission (like projects run by a woman, for example) so that the voting members of the community can quickly identify those elements.
I’ll add the 1minute video to the wiki post - I think that’s also a great idea. It shouldn’t feel complicated for the applicant (you can put hours and hours into 1 minute of video if you think it’s makes a difference) but video has many advantages.
I stand for “GOSH Hack Weeks”!
HI all, thanks Greg @gbathree for this great proposal
I have a question regarding the possible outputs… Can a node build something like an infrastructure? The output being: equipped lab(s), curated/translated educational resources and documentation.
The idea here is not to build new hardware but just adapt and replicate already existing hardware. I’m thinking of something similar to a regional (global south, latinoamerica) biohackacademy (maybe this can also be applied to other fields…?)
Already existing labs in the region sharing their knowledge and helping new/incipient labs to choose and build their basic hardware.
I think it can be important for independent organizations (ie. hackerspace expanding to the bio world) and can be seen as a strategy to bring the values imbedded in open hardware into local universities, promoting from an early stage open ways of education and research.
Maybe this kind of proposal should include some additional requirements regarding participants (ie the real existence of a space where the hardware is going to be used, minimum infraestructural requirements, funding for at least one year?..): I think additional funding for this kind of iniciatives can be found around
The idea can be refined but in general lines what do you think of this?
que dicen? @ffederici @biomakers_lab @librepensante.org
Why, of course! This would be very much in the spirit of “making tools that help make tools.” For example, my over-riding personal motivation is not any specific hardware but a lab (a collection of hardware housed in a mobile box/contraption or a room of some sort) filled with appropriate hardware for science, very likely targeted toward environments that are resource constrained in some way.
I say, @nanocastro, bring it on!
Yes, good example which will help us narrow down the concept. What if we say:
Outputs should enable science and research (but not be science and research itself)
Creation of outputs should require at least a week of full time collaboration between at least 2 people
a lab - Setting up, systematizing a lab turns a bunch of objects into a usable tool to produce science and research.
a device - people use it directly to generate science a research.
a method - organizes a bunch of actions or steps to allow others to produce science and research more easily.
In general I would suggest we be easy on edge cases, and let the community decide if an edge case fits the intention. That being said, a lab doesn’t feel like an edge case, it feels like a perfect fit
Let’s just do a quick poll for shits and giggles. So far here’s the proposed names…
Any more ideas to throw into a poll?
GOSH Hack Weeks
GROLScH - Global Residencies for Open and Local Science Hardware
You probably already know about this, but do you mean something in the likes of bentolab? https://www.bento.bio/
GOSH Hack Weeks <— sensible but boring
Nodes <— sounds like a programming language or a disease, like when my node gets blocked because of a code, sdifff, sdiff
GROLScH - Global Residencies for Open and Local Science Hardware <— fun but nonsensical and contrived. Also, a Dutch beer.
For s&g, of course
Yes, yes, and more (adding … because discourse insists a post must be at least 20 characters)
I agree with you @nanocastro. I think some regions like Latin America could work on a single output, it could be more meaningful. Some people can get funding from universities or government. GOSH coordination team should be the legal support for applying to these local resources. Sometimes it’s difficult to find money if you are an independent space/lab without an international support.
My earlier suggestion was the following… @biomakers_lab do you feel like this fits your criteria and if not how could it be adjusted?
@gbathree yes, it fits.
Hey all, sorry I’ve been hoping that clear funding would come through for this which is why I haven’t followed up / posted more but so far we do not have secured funding for this. I think this is an exciting idea that puts the power directly in the hands of the community. If anyone knows of possible funding sources for an idea like this please post them here!!!
@Javier and Chris Gammel (from the Amp Hour podcast) and I were discussing the GOSH “production events” at our dinner after FOSDEM and one of the things that came up from Chris, speaking from experience of helping with the Hackaday contest, and a sentiment that seemed to be echoed by @Javier was that it will be super important to keep the problem description narrow and focused.
I think that this focus is already clear from the draft application outline, however, what could be fleshed out is the definition of how the problems themselves are sourced. For instance: it could be interesting to source the problem definition from outside GOSH from citizens and scientists. A problem that is present in the community so to speak, and then select the participants based on their skill sets rather than start with a GOSHer’s “passion project” and then select participants based on proximity.
I don’t know if it would work, but I thought it was an interesting alternative approach. What are your thoughts?
Either way I’d definitely want to help move this idea forward but at this point I am not clear on how to best do that. Hit me up with some suggestions on how I can help.
@dusjagr is organazing a collaborative, electronics and kit focused event in Switzerland towards the end of the month which I will be joining. Our focus will be to document existing and create new electronics kits of all sorts: a KitSprint. (Though I should probably let @dusjagr announce himself and explain more.)
I know @mariob is another person interested in seeing the “collaborative production events” idea develop as we managed to catch up after FOSDEM and I reminded him about what this idea was about. (@unixjazz we didn’t really manage to talk about this when we met in person but would be interested in your thoughts as well)
Wow, you met Chris Gammel? I’m a big Amp Hour fan, actually I’d like to have an Amp Hour type show for the open science hardware movement, but anyway…
Having a ‘consumer directed’ production event is an interesting idea. It adds some work in the setup phase, as you’ve got to get consumers to provide thoughtful input, but it’s certainly possible.
I love the ideas, but at this point funding is the main problem here.
So, how can I help? Are we just waiting on funding or is there something to be done?
GOSHers Latinos, we have two opportunitties here to get support for residencies in LatinoAm.
1- CELFI (to be hosted in Argentina) can cover accommodation and trips to Latino participants (1wk to 1month courses). They supported the first TECNOx and it was great (lots of full scholarships)
2- CYTED (to be hosted in 4 different countries - 4 years of funds; 25000 EUR per year max) to support networks composed of -at least- 6 of these countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, España, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Portugal, República Dominicana, Uruguay y Venezuela.