How can we improve the process of selecting projects to post on our Open Collective platform? This post outlines our initial stab at the process.
This discussion thread here, is dedicated for additional ideas and refinements to the proposal and selection process you may have.
Just to spitball, I don't have any specific projects, links and process' that I could post, to the extent defined by the Open collective site post. although I think keeping it that specific is a good idea.
The IfcAnnotation roundtripping would help a tonne, but also linking into other open source toolkits, the spreadsheet integration with .ods is amazing.
Something that would set it apart is to have site reports that are linked to the task sheets (that you can click on in BlenderBim and it opens the the .odt file in Libreofficewriter) but that is too much detail at the moment I think. I'm not even sure if something like this is included in the IFC schema, I haven't skimmed it at all.
My question is, how big of a goal should these be set as and what kind of priority should be given? Because I definitely want 2d documentation going so I can start converting some of the Autocad architects I know.
The use cases that I am looking at are:
2d drafting
Taking Ifc files from closed programmes(Revit&Archicad) and using them in BBim or Freecad
Interoperability between Freecad, BBim and other Open source programmes
You could use a template or a google form for the application of ideas.
The topic here is "Improving the process of selecting projects". @Ace please make a separate post with your comment so we can stay on topic.
Hey @duncan sorry if it got lost in the paragraph, but the main question there is
"how big of a goal should these be set as and what kind of priority should be given? " ...to each project, which pertains to this no?
If the goal is to improve the process, I think to define what qualifies would help people post projects, and also create a hierarchy for selecting projects. At the moment isn't this the place to ask that question?
@bitacovir is the only one who has proposed anything,
having an example and a quite simple explanation would help the process, by having more than 1 option to choose from
@Ace said:
If the goal is to improve the process, I think to define what qualifies would help people post projects, and also create a hierarchy for selecting projects. At the moment isn't this the place to ask that question?
That's a perfect question for this thread.
The original post was a bit unclear and did sound like a place to discuss proposals. I've edited it (correct me if I've misunderstood the goals of this thread @theoryshaw ). The place to discuss proposals is in a dedicate thread for that single proposal.
So, @Ace what are thoughts on a better process? What could be improved?
I think an example project and template is good for helping people submit ideas. As more people submit, more examples become available so that will get better.
After there is a pool of ideas,
to then prioritize features that either, are needed for a real world workflow, or something that only Opensource could do?
I personally don't know which would be a stronger case.
If we look at the proposals on the other post atm they both seem to be trying to replicate features found elsewhere, so that it's not needed to hop back into Revit to do a profile or energy calculation. I think something like "Creating a fully Opensource workflow" should be a priority of these projects or be given a weighting.
If the process could be something like this
template
unique proposal
Added to list of proposals
Weighting score in a matrix of factors like "part of a fully opensource workflow"
highest scores get added to the Open collective platform
That's my feeling but maybe that is too much admin and should be simpler
My question is, how big of a goal should these be set as and what kind of priority should be given?
I'm a little confused by this question, but will try to take a stab at it.
My question is, how big of a goal should these be set as
Per the following blurb we thought it best to keep the scope as atomized as possible so there's a clear finish line on when to distribute funds.
For example, if a project that calls for 'improving BlenderBIM', that would be too vague.
The projects ideas, however, you mentioned in your post above would be good candidates in my mind, as they have a pretty tight scope.
Or did you mean something else, here?
what kind of priority should be given
I might have misunderstood you here, but I think the community through their votes, and ultimately through their level of funding will set the 'priority'. Or did you mean something else?
Per the following blurb we thought it best to keep the scope as atomized as possible so there's a clear finish line on when to distribute funds.
- Please post projects that have a tight, atomized scope of work. A tight delineated scope will allow us to determine when the project is done, and when the funds should be distributed to the author(s).
For example, if a project that calls for 'improving BlenderBIM', that would be too vague.
The projects ideas, however, you mentioned in your post above would be good candidates in my mind, as they have a pretty tight scope.
I think that's alright then.
I might have misunderstood you here, but I think the community through their votes, and ultimately through their level of funding will set the 'priority'. Or did you mean something else?
Ultimately that's how Open source works right? I think I am overcomplicating/overthinking this, I thought things could be 'vetted' with a matrix so people could compare ideas without having to read walls of text
I thought things could be 'vetted' with a matrix so people could compare ideas without having to read walls of text
Hopefully by keeping the proposal under 200 words will make it more digestible.
I can still see very little atomization of proposals. There are no milestones that can easily trigger funding. (Apart from @Moult suggestion for writing articles.)
The openness of the proposals so far really leaves all the work up to the steering committee to make the hard calls for releasing funds and to have discussions with the participants to clarify the projects. I don't like it. It also leaves the potential donors pretty much in the dark about how much of a project they're funding - a delicate start or a rock solid solution. What we have looks like project bounties. I think think we need something more like specific necessary projects which move things forward. fixable within 3 months. doable for less than $3000
What I DO like is the great ideas.
Maybe a quick way to get from here to something for the OC is saying something like "if we get up to $3000 together for your proposal what does that buy us?" and just posing that question to each project. Maybe $3000 is a bit ambitious.
Duncan's post here is also related to this topic. Just sharing here.
@theoryshaw said:
Duncan's post here is also related to this topic. Just sharing here.
good call. thanks
@theoryshaw just found this site where we can set up a quadratic vore. We could explore it for next time we want to vote on something.
Login or Register to reply.