4th Inclusiva - Kirsty Boyle and Catarina Mota - openMaterials

From P2P Foundation
Jump to: navigation, search

View/Add your contributions here
Kirsty Boyle and Catarina Mota at 4th Inclusiva

Read OpenMaterials :: P2P Theory in Practice by Kirsty Boyle and Catarina Mota
Visit openMaterials
Watch the video linked below as you read the notes.
Add to the notes as you read.
When commenting: example:

Emma says:
What does vectoralism have to do with the point discussed?

Notes are based on this video

Other speaker videos and documents

openMaterials launched by Catarina and Kirsty, May 5th

Catarina: openMaterials launched by Catarina and Kirsty May 5th. More questions than answers. History will be given; request for feedback.

0.34 = minutes. History

Came from Interactivos?09 at MediaLab Prado a production workshop for three weeks on risky and challenging projects where Boyle and Mota met.

1.00. RepRap and Discussion

Reprap was built during this time; in discussion at the cafe and hotel; we are interested in fabrication, but also interest in materials and other technology.

After going back home, Catarina and Kirsty wanted to collab, and found there was little to no materials information.

Blog and wiki started to inquire globally, a DIY pool of knowledge about materials.

3.20. The Platform

Three main components to the platform; This is like our bookmarks section;

The goal is to try and gather as much information about all kinds of materials as possible so there's one place for access

The wiki is supposed to contain physical properties of materials, how to, how not, what good for, what not, where ot get them, who's working with them, which university, who to talk to ect, incorporate video and text tutorials.

4.30. For Everyone

Pointers so anyone can learn about and use materials at any depth.

5.00. Our Background

We come from background working with open source technologies for over 10 years. From software, hardware, to materials, at another level of open source.

6.00. Who we're working with

In a way we've self assembled, we want to bring a variety of people; not bound by geographical location; we encourage different points of views; inputs; into use of materials; and possible applications;

6.40 Within the group of people; alot come from Interactivos; meeting each other; from us starting openMaterials; many things have come out of this; one Catarina and I working different; Marc Ducali?, Traveling to India collaborating on bioart, with ??? , Bangalore.

7.43. Materials shared in common

We want people to experience; be confident using different materials; and share knowledge to the community; public domain.

8.00 The Issues; Request for feedback

Issue of communication; its important to be cross-cultural; we looked at websites, such as Make, but found many of these websites are not so open; we did not want to restrict area of focus;

9.3. Blog Tone: DIY vs. Academe

We found it challenging with the blog; how do we establish the right done; the bridge between academia and DIY; where everyone feels comfortable discussing these issues; that one challenge;

9.5. The Peer Network; Vision

It was only two weeks after we launch; like open manufacturing; an e-mail list; open source ecology; DIY Bio; we're like micro communities working toward greater movement in open design and manufacturing; In a way; the p2p foundation is a an important way for us to be tied together to keep moving in that direction; we do not have any problem within open material communicating; but keeping in touch with other communities however is overwhelming;

11.3. P2P was not planned

It was not a conscious decision to make it a p2p project; it jsut seemed natural to set it up in this manner; its been interesting forming relations to others in the p2p community.

12. openArtist

Florian Stufflmia; openArtist; interface for artists; working with him to get him more open hardware within that distribution; setting up a mirror; to help promote that work;

13. Intellectual Property (IP)

Copyright and commons; in terms of materials; science; innovation in general; patents; problem; how do we?; there doesn't seem a GPL style patent as an option; to help protect freedom; this is something I'd like to research in more detail; research done; different discussions; but seem to have stalled; it would be great to have the option; to feel comfortable that freedom is protected and not privately or commercially appropriated; not truely free;

Do you have experience with open patents?

A. If you consider open patents; in software industry; public the work; what you discover is then unpatentable by others; sharing is best way to fight patents;

15.40. IP and prior art

In terms of prior art is loooked at in other ways, depending on the region or country; patents are treated in other ways in different countries; this is a big problem;

A. Its true when you patent is globally; but so too is sharing global to fight patents;

16.4. How do we make openMaterials attractive and productive?

Working at a micro level, then connecting to achieve different objectives at a macro level; to move things forward in terms of open design and manufacturing?

A. Gift economy guy says: academic vs. diy, very sypathetic to building the dialogue; are there documents about the concerns you ask?

A. Kirsty: In terms of engineering and science is the biggest growth areas. Its a really fast moving area. So we want to try to gather as much information and inspire to take part in sharing technology.

18.4 Catarina: We're doing something like this for the first time. Share dammit! ;p

19.2 Howard Rhinegold, 'Smart Mobs', mentions, before technology saturates society; there's a window to change events; so we hope to not repeat mistakes; share dat materials info.

20. A pupil of mine offers feedback

Michel Bauwens: Canadian guy; Pat Monee?; fights against GMO, biopirary; he did not share optimistic about diy bio; tinkering with the building blocks of life; so this is something that will come up at some point; where's the self regulation; do you accept government does a raid at your home lab and says you can't do it?

21. Trust; Safety

A. Catarina: Trusting peers; those we work with; we trust; no harm will come out of it intentionally; I do not believe the government should raid your house; politely send a materials scientist first rather than arrest you first; beauracy and imprisonment one year to prove harmless; materials are dangerous; but they're out there; like explosives; not just bio; on open manufacturing list we discussed licences, but related to ethics underlying; a whole area we'd like to have a group figure out.

Kirsty: In openMaterials we have engineers, chemical engineers, material engineers, and artists; so this a great platform to science research that's usually only isolated in a lab and not given opportunity to have in public. Artists by default want to share in the public space. We want to put them in space for the community to interact with.

23. openCraft

Q. Knitting community. open craft movement; open source embroidery; we've tried to have a broad interpretation of materials to encourage these movements; communities discuss types of yarn; I go to website with info; find a project instruction with material lists;

A. Kirsty: we tag. categorization. this is our first attempt to organize the data. things will evolve.

25.4. Taxonomy

How do you create a nomenclature rather than p2p? Folksomomy, names to different things, balance between hierarchy and mesh-work (comment: de Landa). You can tag it as multiple categories; so its a combination of hierarchy/mesh-work. Post what you like.

27. How is it applied?

Q. How can the info be used for projects? Kirsty: building robots with non-traditional materials; like wood and paper; pulp based computing; Catarina: interested in paper; shows a arduino on a base of paper; now we doing the whole circuit in paper with pcbs; its alot cheaper; the fun of challenge and experimenting with materials; offers after the break a bunch of goodies, a trick bag with: uv sensitive beads; carbon nanotubes; smart shape memory allow; to share after the talk; its very magical; we want to work with it; so we're using the p2p approach to advance materials science;

Source: untitled circuits #1

29. Catarina: conductive body paint; a transistor that changes color; each cell is a pixel; touch sensitive luminating fabric; muscle wire with conductive glue; what can we do with materials; rather than traditional pcbs. But proprietary means like IP prevent innovation; share dammit!; where are the DIY examples of these proprietary technologies?

32. Let's aspire other people...

...to aspire other people to do this; to build a body of research and art around materials.

33. We live in both worlds; DIY and Academe

Dorfbot? We live in both worlds; DIY and academic; what kind of bridges can we create? Please join the group.

34. Is the conductive paint knowledge known?


How do we get it?

36. 3D censor

Catarina: 3d censor based on copper, magnetic field, are you open sourcing it; do you want to share? Hopefully they will; so let's brainwash them by doing it in practice to incite a following.

37. IP and open science?

What did you discover about IP in common science? Kirsty: it seemed only to focus on copyright rather than patents. openpatients.org, but it not active.

38. Freedom agreements

But the clause, anybody that builds on the work, how do you keep it free? How do we offer people that option?

Know any legal people?

End of Talk.


In response to the problem areas discussed, Nathan Cravens, suggests:

With The Holistic Problem of Manufacturing in mind...

Problem. IP
Solution. Consider yourself a "Pirate Bay" or "Alter-globalization" of materials ('Pirate Bay' for a hacker/DIY audience and 'Alter-globalization' for the academic crowd) Distribute materials knowledge to p2p networks globally to the degree activity becomes widely accepted and therefore law by default No shut down can stop operations; granted participants exceed rates of halted operations No one can be put to trail; as too many global participants exist to possibly fill a court room; with antagonism too costly for state or corporations; or for any antagonistic externality.

Contact. Sam Rose <samuel.rose AK gmail.com> and Paul Hartzog <paulbhartzog SAT gmail.com> are developing a p2p program language, FLOWS, we can use to distribute materials knowledge among the self selected globally. FLOWS can also address the distributed requirements below. Smári McCarthy <smari ADT anarchism.is>, "Bryan Bishop" <kanzure SAT gmail.com>, and Erik de Bruijn <info DAT erikdebruijn.nl> are other get-to-knowtables exploring these areas in a developmental manner.

P. I need help!
S. When users sign up, they can choose to enroll as tech support to help you. Support is alerted based on online status and knowledge generated based on that support guide's use of the system. In 'Settings', users can choose to join or leave

P. Hazardous or potentially destructive materials combinations
S. The establishment of a distributed regulatory mechanism can, first, prevent unintended hazardous outcomes. Peer regulation is also important for reasons of 'terroristic threat' that may attempt to harm others as to attain a state or market or other institutional advantage using fear based tactics. Since the culture of openMaterials, and p2p as represented by our umbrella network, the P2P Foundation, is that of peer governance and shared commons, this behavior, if it ever does occur, will likely be done by newcomers or those first becoming acquainted with our toolset. Explicit violence is expected to be a rare occurrence, especially as basic needs are met adequately world-wide using the approaches under discussion and development, here at openMaterials, and throughout our partner networks, but it would seem inappropriate not to address this issue of external threat, just-in-case, especially since our work will radically shift cultural dynamics and potential for conservative antagonism 'using our good against us' based on the mentality of the decaying or collapsed paradigms that surfaced before us.

Self selected individuals interested in security donate idle computer cycles to crunch the patterns; or users can enroll as peer reviewers. Essentially, this program is the 'distributed infrastructure integrity' end of technical support enrollment. Levels of security can be established based on materials combinations used, from low to high risk. When the system flags, the suspicion is first reported to risk prone user, while enrolled peer reviewers in the same 'practice categories' (peer review based on the the reviewer's skills most related to the problem area) are alerted as well. Peer review can be based on discussion and observing the data in low risk circumstances. The higher the risk, the more subjected it becomes to a greater pool of peer review, which may include visitation with the user and assessment of the manufacturing area.

P. Privacy
S. The system must store the user's entire work history according to type and amount of materials used. The software "looks" at this information only in regard to hazardous or potentially hazardous combinations. For example, if a user only wants friends, rather than the public, to see entire workflows, the user has the right to privacy in this way.

P. Private Personal vs. Common Free Use
S. If more than one person other than the user makes or uses a similar design, the system notices the match, and introduces the users by introducing to each the design, either the same or similar. When this occurs, designs enter the public domain as common and free use, but how each individual uses the designs/materials for themselves personally can remain private or public based on individual user settings.