Q:Do we have to document our work and have it reviewed to stay in the running?
Otherwise, we'll get lots and lots of RepRap development in Other Spaces, but none of it going up on the wiki unless or until someone receives a 20,000 or 80,000 dollar check.
This means that every part file and so on live at RepRap.org, as opposed to a proposed entry being a link to a constellation of off-site webpages, parts files, etc.
This would include subassemblies, firmware, most software, and so on.
Also, I would prefer to avoid "Dark Horse" or competitors working in secret or in Other Spaces and then registering and submitting at the last minute of December 31, 2012, but I'm the one who created the registration page.
Thoughts and discussion? The rules only say "Participating teams are expected to regularly publish and make available their technology on an ongoing basis." I believe it is reasonable to hope and expect that people will publish on RepRap.org.
I'll ponder this for a while, and then may ask for the Foresight Institute to clarify the rules after we synthesize something that looks reasonable.
--Sebastien Bailard 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
We're really on the honor system here as there's not much that can be done to enforce these ideals. Anyone determined to undermine the spirit of the competition by trickling out or neglecting their documentation will be able to do so. You can attempt to fight this to an extent by forcing all competitors to publish parts files of completed components a selected amount of time in advance of the final competition, but even then: they could order their releases so that their "secret sauce" was very last.
At the end of the day, there's only so much that can be done.
An MVP system has something to be said for it, however it would undervalue the person who did the most valuable thing: found the keystone puzzle piece and assembled all of the building blocks in the proper order. It emphasizes the contributions of legwork and underemphasizes the innovator, and the creative big idea man who made something valuable from the MVPs work.
In practice: I think the gada prize winner should have people who believe their ideas were utilized claim themselves as contributors, and then the community can evaluate the merits of that claim, and then weight the value of that contribution to decide how the funds should be distributed.
Stacking the deck comes in to play in deciding by what metric "the community" is represented. Popular vote? Small selection of representatives? American legal system? ect.
Anyone who neglects their documentation may get scooped by someone who does reinvent that particular wheel.
I'm not too worried about bad actors in that respect. And I'm happy I don't have to administrate the prize details - that's the Foresight Institute's duty.
I'm mostly just reminding folk that they should probably keep notes, etc on RepRap wiki pages for their entries, rather than parking everything in a blog or Other Space in this case.
--Sebastien Bailard 09:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just one thought:
The rules for the prize state, that you need to print (at least) three different materials. Counting the plastics as one material, there is some metal printing needed ("usefully electrically conductible", "ability to print electronic circuit boards"), and i would suggest something like rubber (if possible), so the belts can be printed too. The larger build envelope seems to me just a secondary matter of sizing.
--Ranthoron 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)