Great topic! I have already posted my comments on NASA’s idea site here: http://opennasa.ideascale.com/a/dtd/33386-7044 and have a slightly windier version here: http://bartacus.blogspot.com/2.....ce-in.html

My comments generally apply to your point about “keeping the investors happy.” If you have any thoughts about the posting, I’d be happy to hear them.

Salud,

/b

Awesome to see you posting here. Great topic! And now, some detailed questions (now that you have my mind working):

I’d love to hear ideas on moving from the “open = transparency” model to an “open = participatory” model.

[Transparency being where processes and technologies are sufficiently explained so that others can understand what is happening and, potentially, replicate those processes and recreate the technologies independently.

Participatory being where someone who is actively using the technology/process has the opportunity to collaborate with other users and make improvements to a process or technology in such a way that they can be incorporated into future iterations by the community.]

Basically, how do you stop talking TO people and start talking WITH them about what’s going on? When does someone stop being a student of the process experts and become their colleague? How do you foster innovation in a community where there are vastly different levels of knowledge and experience?

With computer software, it is easy for anyone to download a software development kit and tinker: all it takes is a computer, bandwidth, and time. If they don’t get their Linux kernel to compile, no big deal! When working with rocket engines (or cryogenics), the barrier to entry is much higher and the risks of failure can be much greater.

Do you think that barriers to entry will affect the type of people able to participate in technology development? If so, is it really “open” at all?

[Also, I think I ate too much sugar today!]