Talk:Makers Local 256

From Makers Local 256
Revision as of 15:35, 14 December 2009 by Brimstone (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I think we need something to communicate with users who are editing on the wiki at the same time, like an AJAX shoutbox in the side or something. There would need to be some indicator showing how many people are logged into the wiki at once though. Another idea is adding a blogging interface to post about new technology and interesting links relative to current or future projects. Discussion breeds new projects and new approaches to existing ones, we know this much from anytime any of us are in the same place. --strages 05:42, 6 March 2007 (CST)

On the topic of idea/product "ownership": Strages and I were IMing today about this. It's an ugly topic to come up in an innovative and creative atmosphere such as is being built here, but one which will come up at some point, guaranteed. Better to iron it out now, I think, than at some point where one of the ideas envisioned shows imminent promise of reaching market.

First: Define Product as a marketable outcome of a project as represented on this site by a project page. Define enterprise as the voting rights in the direction/marketing of the product before bringing it to market, and the profit coming back to the makers as a group after product launch. Keep in mind that the total enterprise enjoyed by the makers involved might be in the minority if there is other capital being invested.

My suggestion: An idea originator, or group of originators, by default owns a certain percentage of the enterprise of said product, N%. (100-N)% is apportioned to the maker or, more likely, makers who took the idea and created a product from it. This apportionment would be based on a peer review of documentation (at this point, the wiki) and other evidence of work in an all-hands meeting of the local makers, if it has not been worked out already by the makers involved. If we incorporate a nonprofit Makers Group, then some small percentage of the enterprise should go to it, as the facilitator of the making process.

Notes:

  • More than likely an idea originator would be the majority enterprise holder for a project unless he just came up with the idea and abandoned it.
  • This will encourage rabid documentation fetishes. All contributions to a project should be signed.
  • We may need to come up with some project management features for the wiki.
  • In the nearer term (next couple of years, say), very few if any projects will even come close to the point of needing this process. People not involved in a project would be called on for an all-hands meeting, and that's it.
  • There are a whole host of problems and issues this might bring up---I think incorporating as a non-profit might smooth the way and provide some governance in situations, but the non-profit board shouldn't have all the power. I really think peer review is the way to go.

--Korc 11:45, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


I suggest that we should form a group admin project page based on whatever name gets decided upon (We need a name) and start projects related to admin, like project ownership debate, nonprofit formation, etc. --Korc 14:50, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


I suggest the following guidelines, or similar:

  • The idea originator(s) initially have absolute control over a project and 100% enterprise divided evenly.
    • This may be changed as long as there is a contract or recorded negotiations/agreement of some kind.
  • The idea originator(s) may state his/their terms and rewards for contributors on the project page.
    • Rewards may include things such as enterprise, project direction voting rights, etc. for contributors, or they may include enterprise or other rights for [insert name of makers group].
    • This may help potential contributors to decide what projects to help with.
    • We may come up with some default terms and rewards should there be none listed for a project or an ambiguity arises.
  • The idea originator(s) may decide on a license for a project, and it may be free, copyleft, or even proprietary.
    • Again, a default license may apply to any projects which state no license of their own.
    • Contributors may also have a say in this if they gained the rights according to project awards or recorded agreement.
  • Potential contributors may negotiate to change terms/licenses/rewards/etc. before they contribute.
    • Alternatively, a special contract or other record of agreement may be made specifically for that contributor.
    • Changes or special terms may also give rights/enterprise/etc. to [insert name of makers group].
    • Contributions that have already been made may not be revoked due to a later disagreement over the project.
  • Project maintainers may decide to withdraw a project or product from [insert name of makers group]. By default, there is no restriction on withdrawal.
    • Restrictions may be introduced by the listed project terms, license, or other recorded agreements.

Basically, we have some default (loose) terms for a project within the group, but these terms may be tightened in order to better entice contributors. I believe that this would allow for project maintainance to remain flexible enough for anything to happen but while still providing ways for other members of [insert name of makers group] to influence the benefits to [insert name of makers group] as a whole or to individuals.

I haven't much experience in writing up legal-esque material. Any major disagreements with this? Let's argue semantics.

--jmcarthur 15:08, 13 March 2007 (CDT)