We have released v0.1 of the OSE CEB Proposal, which is a summary of our product release plan for the CEB press. This helps put the entire CEB project in perspective to supporters. The abstract reads:
Herein we provide a short overview of the Open Source Ecology (OSE) enterprise development model and deployment plan. The plan is for Community Supported Manufacturing (CSM) of a high performance, open source, Compressed Earth Block (CEB) press – The Liberator – to begin by end of March, 2009. This is OSE’s first product release. We propose an innovative economic model, with replicability as one of its key features.
Here is a simplified product ecology from the proposal:
You can download the proposal here. Please circulate widely. Please comment here or at the OSE wiki.
This is your last chance to support us for the month of October. We have under a week left, and are over 3/4 of the way to reaching our proposed goal. Please donate here.
This sounds like the rational street performer protocol, except you want to keep the money even if you never reach the quota?
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/rspp
Could you provide an html or pdf version of this .doc?
—-
Yes, we keep the money even if we don’t reach the quota. The reason is that money is spent on hardware and project costs – and not reaching a quota means that project development is delayed – but not permanently stalled. The delay results in one of two actions. (1) We continue to work and document, using available resources. (2) We spend additional time to fundraise, delaying on-the-ground progress.
The result is that money is raised, with some delay to on-the-ground progress. The ramification of (1) above is that we work with what we’ve got. Let me give you an example. Because we collected funding, I was able to purchase a larger metal grinder – which made work about 3 times faster. Otherwise, it would just take longer to do the job. Or, we got fresh metal from the local provider – instead of having to wade through our scrap pile and prepare old metal. This saved us about 5 times in time due to the cutting and grinding requirements of scrap metal.
I think you get the picture. The point is – the show goes on – and the only variable is the time it takes us to get there. I think it is clear from our documentation that we solve problems and move forward. We rely on trust on both sides of the peer equation: we promise ethics and product – and supporters provide the resources. The accountability should be clear when we publish our October fundraising and progress results at the end of this month. As I keep saying – an open source project goes only as fast as people contribute resources. We are not short of explicit programs of action. Indeed, I think we can accelerate progress to the point that the entire Global Village Construction Set is deployed at Factor e Farm – and made replicable – within a 2 year period. This includes real products that are a competing for market share with centralist, mainstream production.
With that said, fund us. We’re lean, mean, radical, and open source.
The proposal PDF is found here. Let me know if you have any issues with access.
Franz Nahrada’s endorsements of Enterprise Plan:
Marcin Jakubowski of Open Source Ecology wrote today:
“I published the OSE CEB proposal v0.1. It deserves some attention. Can
you pump it up through your networks?
There is some hard-core, breakthrough rocket fuel for global
transformation in that humble 4-pager, if one can see through it:
http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=379”
I read through the proposal and I got really, really astounded.
Marcin was absolutely right.
This is the first blueprint ever of community supported manufacturing
that I seriously encountered – and it is a bomb!
Many synapses clicked in my head. I saw the relations with
Frithjof Bergmanns New Work concept – but in an entirely
different new light – and I saw the immediate relevance
to connect with Mohammad Yunus social enterprise concept.
And I suddenly saw the possibility to solve the problem
how p2p production rises to the level of serious manufacturing
world-class products.
A social entreprise is an enterprise that works at zero profit,
re-investing possible gains or rather bringing down the market
price to the cost price. It has no profit motive, this is where
the need for a mission or task comes in to fill the void.
Such an enterprise is not a corporation, but is based on a
constitution, on democratic control of its shareholders which
equal users and stakeholders in absence of dividends on shares.
No interests or license fees to pay. With special licenses community
supported manufacturing plants could be privileged against
for-profit plants. The could keep workers rights alive AND deliver
superior products, supported by the brainpower of global developer
communities. New Work would NOT ONLY work in decentralized
production cafes, but also in large industrial plants – and the two
worlds would be intrinsically linked.
Recently I attacked frithjof for his intention to create
New Work Enterprises as a commercial venture. But here is
a valid alternative: a community share system to build
up large operations.
I began to toss the thought in my head what would be the
economic development of such a share without dividends;
that it could absorb extra savings and still provide some
economic security within the monetary system because it
could still hold some value and hence be sold on need.
A p2p stock exchange would be a living possibility. Value
would be determined by community need and identification with
the product. Stockholding could mean some privileges,
but not the dirty ones.
So I follow Marcins proposal with conviction. Here is the
direct link to the file and a then text transcript for those who
are too lazy to download it:
http://openfarmtech.org/OSE_CEB_Proposal.doc
Franz Nahrada
—-
—-
Interesting allied effort in Pakistan, from Fouad Bajwa, plus my response:
In response to your proposal, I would like you to also go through the
following two links of a concept I designed on open ecosystem grounds,
one idea was floated in the Drupal.org community and the second this
year in the Pakistani IT community as it comes to realise such
potential. However, both models are similar but a bit modified into
open source community based and then independent open business model
based. Both use the services supply chain system but in a more
conducive and remuneration and mutual support fund based with key
facility for sustainability and growth:
Pakistan ICT Business Incubator and Development Collective Model
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=30136677675&topic=5774
“Drupal Open Co-operative Business Modelâ€
http://groups.drupal.org/node/828 or drupalcooperative
http://groups.drupal.org/taxonomy/term/492
I can place it in an email if needed. I am available for discussion on
the subject.
—-
—-
Dear Fouad,
I am interested in collaborating on particular implementations of your
concept. In general, your principles are congruent with our existing
development path, and larger fruits could be a result.
Marcin
RESPONSE FROM SAMUEL ROSE:
Thanks for your reply, Franz…
– Hide quoted text – wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Franz Nahrada
(most of receivers in BCC to prevent unintended replyfloods)
Marcin Jakubowski of Open Source Ecology wrote today:
“I published the OSE CEB proposal v0.1. It deserves some attention. Can
you pump it up through your networks?
There is some hard-core, breakthrough rocket fuel for global
transformation in that humble 4-pager, if one can see through it:
http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=379”
I read through the proposal and I got really, really astounded.
Marcin was absolutely right.
This is the first blueprint ever of community supported manufacturing
that I seriously encountered – and it is a bomb!
Many synapses clicked in my head. I saw the relations with
Frithjof Bergmanns New Work concept – but in an entirely
different new light – and I saw the immediate relevance
to connect with Mohammad Yunus social enterprise concept.
And I suddenly saw the possibility to solve the problem
how p2p production rises to the level of serious manufacturing
world-class products.
A social entreprise is an enterprise that works at zero profit,
re-investing possible gains or rather bringing down the market
price to the cost price. It has no profit motive, this is where
the need for a mission or task comes in to fill the void.
Such an enterprise is not a corporation, but is based on a
constitution, on democratic control of its shareholders which
equal users and stakeholders in absence of dividends on shares.
This is an interesting notion. It’s interesting for me to note that the real development became possible was in a place where the people involved needed to almost completely remove themselves from traditional/modern subsistence in order to secure the time and space to begin this type of development enterprise.
I don’t think that means that you have to go this route to do it, but that the state we are in right now made it easiest for people to dedicate themselves to it by removing themselves from society, so to speak. It’s just interesting to me.
No interests or license fees to pay. With special licenses community
supported manufacturing plants could be privileged against
for-profit plants. The could keep workers rights alive AND deliver
superior products, supported by the brainpower of global developer
communities. New Work would NOT ONLY work in decentralized
production cafes, but also in large industrial plants – and the two
worlds would be intrinsically linked.
I think this is plausible. I think in a number of years, once the technology cores evolve more, that this could happen.
Recently I attacked frithjof for his intention to create
New Work Enterprises as a commercial venture. But here is
a valid alternative: a community share system to build
up large operations.
This is what we are working towards in Ohio local food systems collaborative! I call these community shares a “commons”. I see the basis of all of these enterprises being built on many different types of commons (knowledge, human labor, resource pooling, etc)
I began to toss the thought in my head what would be the
economic development of such a share without dividends;
that it could absorb extra savings and still provide some
economic security within the monetary system because it
could still hold some value and hence be sold on need.
Part of it is the wealth creation of the different types of commons themselves. The types of commons that are emerging when people pool time, knowledge, data, resources, etc are more valuable than the shares of a typical company stock, in my estimation. Because, those commons are more flexible, adaptable, and sustainable over time. They are far less subject to market forces, and can be leveraged to solve many of the basic subsistence problems of people around the world.
A p2p stock exchange would be a living possibility. Value
would be determined by community need and identification with
the product. Stockholding could mean some privileges,
but not the dirty ones.
I think this is where we can borrow from CA Fitts’s model to some extent, making “A” shares, and “B” shares, for instance. “A” shares going to those who have a vested stake in a commons, giving them a vote in the decision making processes. “B” shares going to people not “local” to the system, but who want to invest in some way, because they have a looser affiliation/affinty/need and can benefit from and contribute to the commons sustainably, but have a smaller stake in the commons. They would have a “dividend” that would be limited to whatever the “B” share contract gives them.
Gemeinschafts-unterstützte Produktion – ein Entwurf…
benni hat in seinem Kommentar natürlich Recht, dass das, was drüben bei Factor E Farm passiert, nur teilweise Peer-Ökonomie ist, weil nur der Entwurfprozess wirklich für alle offen ist. Aber hier ……
Lets build a robust document, a whitepaper, so to speak. Lets pool it all together and have an abstract and a high detail proposal. I will help, ive got a smidgen of free time. Pretty pictures, flow charts and graphs, too. I can use open source software to design it too. Noone will be able to stop us.
[…] We are just opensourcing. This means optimizing – by using open source design, development, and Community Supported Manufacturing. Did you know that you already paid for our fabrication facility by donations? You already shared […]
[…] dimensional lumber, is about $1500, or about $2500 for turnkey, digitally-fabricated product in the community supported manufacturing […]
[…] In addition, we built one Hexayurt, received an insulated army tent on loan for a year, and published our initial CEB CSM business plan. […]
Just as an update on the Product Release Fund, we decided to scrap the concept because it requires withholding information. We decided that in order to keep the maximum level of transparency and participation, there is no place for ‘delayed release of plans’ in our approach. We are instead relying on principles of the economy of abundance – where we believe that increased openness leads to broader participation – which is good for the long-term evolution of this work. I will discuss this in the future. – Marcin, Feb. 22, 2009
[…] – to make this work. It will likely require developing dedicated tooling – in the framework of community supported manufacturing (CSM). We believe that CSM will outperform global outsourcing of the manufacturing process because […]