@baswein said: I think one of the tags should be actively used by a list member.
@baswein Can you spell out for me what you mean? Do you mean like which software has a contact person/active user in osarch? That could be done. Just now I'm thinking more along the lines of what tags we would use that make finding the software you want easy. Similar to the current sections of the software list.
@bitacovir has pointed out that a list is a very good way for people to get a quick view of what's around. I agree, I don't think tags/categories can fully replace a list. My interest in bringing this up is for tags on the software pages so that one can go from one software page with a list of 'capability tags' directly to list of other packages with the same 'capability tags'. Just like now if you find Blender, it leads you to the Blender Addons list (category). https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Blender https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Category:Blender_Add-on
But making a list of functional descriptions would require a team effort.
@duncan exactly- a software that is actively being used by one of the members is more likely to be of use to someone else vs a software that is not used by anyone on the forum but on paper seems useful. Also some of the software on the list are libraries or primarily dependencies or are used as plugins to other software. Here is a clumsy example that might be headed in the right direction: I use QGIS everyday so that could be tagged a Used by OSArch member however Grass GIS I don't use the GUI directly but I do use it to run certain functions though QGIS GUI so that would be tagged as Used by OSArch member through another software and QGIS uses GDAL as a library so that would be used as a library by OSArch member.
Obviously this needs work but what I am trying to get at is some way to get the softwares that are actively used by members to float to the top in some way. Maybe it's stars or something.
@baswein I've wondered about an agreed statement of intent people can 'sign'. On each software page there can then be a list of 'members' who use that software. Does that sound useful?
I've been working a bit on the front page. I think it's getting there. Behind the scenes there is now more structure to the pages so we can rework the front page to make more use of main software/subject pages supplemented by links to categories. I'd like a good GIS image if someone has one to share.
Another suggestion is to implement BCF API to the server, with BFC API the website might create a collaboration interface similar to Facebook and Twitter, I mean convert OSARCH in a BIM server
That's a good question ... I have used it "indirectly" through a 3rd party service for wind analysis (www.simscale.com) so I wouldn't consider myself a user. I think it will be a challenge find OpenFOAM users in this group as it is mostly used by mechanical engineers. Let's see.
@duncan the work you are doing is invaluable!!
I think that @baswein's idea to associate usability of software and libraries by OSArch members makes sense. Not sure what is the best format but it resonates strongly with me, I think it would give better visibility of what we use and for what people can also look for support, advice, etc.
a feature is in my wish list is to a section with requests and votes talking about our wish list for other forums.
example 1:
sweet home 3d users need import export IFC files, but a request in the forum is read after months and in this case, the developers do not finish the work because they think none want that feature, if we do a post and receive multiple votes, the developer might notice that such feature is needed.
if many people vote a post for request a LibreCAD 3 add support for AutoLisp and 3D drawing, then we might share our post with many votes to the developers and they might prioritize that feature.
@duncan said: @baswein I've wondered about an agreed statement of intent people can 'sign'. On each software page there can then be a list of 'members' who use that software. Does that sound useful?
That seems like it could be useful. I guess it starts to open up governance questions like what does it mean to be a member. And what would it mean, and what would it take, for a software to be approved by the OSArch community.
I'm going to post some thoughts on governance in a different there this in different thread.
@baswein said:
I'm going to post some thoughts on governance in a different there this in different thread.
Great! I'm guessing I'll have something to say - I usually do. I like what you've written in the 'Vision for OSArch' thread. Maybe just keep talking there ...
For the sake of this discussion I think adding an account to the wiki and adding a name under a statement should be enough. No need to get formal before we have a governance structure. It's all just about building the group and the usefulness of the website - real governance takes time. @Jesusbill thanks!
@jtm2020hyo you've got lots of interesting I like to hear how you think some of them can be implemented and what you think would give the project the most value for the least effort. Maybe that's a place to start. For now, I'd love to see if you could add some things to the main software list. https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Free_Software_directory
I've added a category of categories and linked to it from the front page. My reasoning (and this is relevant to @jtm2020hyo post with the great mindmap) is that the relationship between software tools is neither linear non one-to-one. One package has a relationship to many others and can be relevant at many stages in a workflow. To me this means that categories need to be the backbone of the site structure. We can make as many workflows as we want, and they are important, but I think being able to find things based on their relationship to each other is primary. https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Category:Categories
@JanF you've made a few suggestions about the structure of the wiki, the front page, translations, etc. Maybe we could talk about that here? You've been doing some work on the BlenderBIM pages, do you have some thoughts on ways of organising the pages? Does it work okay with the banners that link to categories? It seems like a way to grow fast and flexibly until we have a really structured approach.
Yeah I thought we'd continue on the talk page as you suggested, but as it doesn't give notifications it's rather slow. I'll prepare my take on the main page as you said and post my thoughts here.
Here are some very basic thoughts from the discussion we had in the monthly meetup today.
We need to make our purpose and identity clearer. Are we promoting a single solution or an ecosystem of tools? (hint: it's an ecosystem). A focus on workflows is good - but we don't have good examples on the wiki yet. I've questioned this approach before since some tools are used at several stages in a process. There are some projects in the works now and maybe the Open Source House or wikilab could get some more attention? https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AECO_Workflow_Examples
Other than that there was not too much to say, I can only suggest that people go and take a look at the wiki and see if the structure works. The structural decisions we make on the wiki now are going to stick with us for a while into the future.
Hi all,
I'm a bit critic of the current form of communication of the purpose of OSArch. From the point of view of someone arriving just now, there's no clear purpose stated for what is OSArch and what is the purpose of the community behind it.
I came here first searching for info on BlenderBIM, because I hadn't find much until then. Actually it was google that thrown me in while I was exploring BlenderBIM. I started by loosing interest in OSArch as I thought it was a forum for discussing open source software for architecture in general and it was not specific of BlenderBIM, but then I didn't see any other place to discuss blenderBIM and seen lot of posts about it so thought it was mainly for BlenderBIM and people that wanted to get involved with it. I got into the meeting thinking I would discuss about BlenderBIM and finally I understood that I was almost right at first impression.
The first impression was in end August, and I'm understanding what's happening only almost 15 days later. It's probably a problem in me, but I guess more people will have it.
The way I see it now, the purpose of OSArch is not so much to find FOSS alternatives to standard Architectural workflows, it rather is finding the right alternatives and the developers/users that want to bridge together to create a functional workflow. So, aggregating those alternatives into the same umbrella which is OSArch, means that they will all remain as independent as they wish but will contribute to be a part of a chain where they work seamlessly together.
I hope I got it right this time.
If this is so, this has to be stated from the start in the frontpage and also in the forum.
Another issue is separating what software is already under the umbrella of OSArch and is trying to build bridges with each other from softwre is not under the umbrella but is interesting for the objectives of OSArch or OSArch relies on it:
I'll assume BlenderBIM is under OSArch;
I understood Archipack is feeding geometry that BlenderBIM reads directly and so it's working under the OSArch umbrella too.
Is FreeCAD?
Is Topologic?
Who else is?
Being under the umbrella doesn't mean software has to follow what OSArch determines, it just means that a specific software is trying to work well within the objectives of OSArch and, therefore, bridging well together with software already under the umbrella.
Blender is clearly not under OSArch, but it's essential for OSArch purposes. Blender Foundation could eventually at some point, support OSArch, or develop work to make better bridges with OSArch software, if OSArch needs it and pledges for it.
Is FreeCAD like Blender or is it part of OSArch already or is it more willing to be a part of OSArch at this point?
Then there is huge a repository of FOSS AEC software and it is very interesting to have in the site and keep it updated.
However most of that software is not related to OSArch at any level, or even aware of what OSArch is and what are the objectives. Software that is not activelly working to build bridges, or sofware which is not part of any workflow, should remain at the repository because otherwise it will only bring confusion up. If a user finds a software and demonstrates it's usefulness for any OSArch workflow, then it should be mentioned specifically even if that software isn't collaborating.
From this repository we might also identify specific software that is particularly interesting for OSArch's objectives, and then it's OSArch that should reach out to them expose them a clear objective and ask them to join and work for that objective, where they would then agree to be a part of OSArch. If they are not interested, either they are useful as they are and need not change, and they should be mentioned in the OSArch workflow (like libreoffice and others) or it is OSArch that might need to find alternative software to fill the gap, or build the bridges by themselves.
There is also the matter of proprietary software and how OSArch software bridges with it. There is some random mention of Revit in the wiki but it's not clear from the start why is it mentioned. If the idea is to start using some of OSArch software to fill the gaps of other software, then there should be a dedicated section just for that. As users from the community show examples of how they use OSArch software to complement they're usual tools, the wiki should show those too.
So, for me, the organization of the site should be clearer and more related to OSARch's objectives and I would suggest something like this:
1 - What is OSArch?
1.1 - Find FOSS that can be connected for a full workflow or for several smaller workflows for all sectors and stages of the AEC Industry;
1.2 - Develop FOSS that can replace proprietary software for all stages of the workflow or for more workflows for specific tasks;
1.3 - Gather a community of users and developers around the objective of perfecting OSArch software and workflows.
2 - Examples of what has been made using OSArch software and workflows.
2.1 - Examples of what can be done using specific software - be clear about potential and limitations;
2.2 - Examples of what can be done using a specific workflow - example: using this and this people can create a IFC MEP model to use with Trimble Connect.
2.3 - Examples of projects fully developed using OSARch software (this will take time and it's too ambitious for now, but it's nice to state that there are no examples yet, or that it's not yet possible, though that is the objective).
3 - What software is part of the OSArch workflow?
3.1 - BlenderBIM - how to use and what's it's roll on the workflow;
3.2 - Archipack - how to use and what's it's roll on the workflow;
3.3 - (sorry for my lack of knowledge)...
4 - Other FOSS software for AEC not related to OSArch:
4.1 - Repository
5 - Workflows
5.1 - Description of workflows to achieve specific tasks using exclusively FOSS;
5.2 - Description of workflows to develop a full project using FOSS.
5.3 - Integrating OSArch software with proprietary Software. How to use OSARch software with:
5.3.1 - Revit;
5.3.2 - Archicad;
5.3.3 - Rhino;
5.3.4 - Sketchup;
5.3.5 - AutoCAD;
5.3.6 - (...)
6 - OSArch Community:
6.1 - Use, test and give feedback on the OSARch software;
6.2 - Get envolved on helping develop OSArch software;
6.3 - Suggest FOSS software or methodologies to improve the workflow or fill gaps in workflow;
6.4 - Suggest more ways on how to use OSArch software to complement proprietary software.
6.3 - Create software to fill the gap in OSArch workflow.
Besides the structure of the wiki not being clear, the image of the wiki also doesn't help at all. It's confusing for me. Is there any better looking platforms that can make OSArch more sexy without loosing the editing capabilities of a wiki?
@JQL can you check the draft I prepared on my talk page? (and perhaps put yours together too?) https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JanF
Also pinging @duncan for the wiki mainpage discussion.
I have mostly similar opinion on the matter. The only thing I am not so certain about is the focus on software being and not being "under the umbrella". Why is it so important to you? As far as I know, only BlenderBIM and Freecad are developed with the active focus on OSArch. (and also the connection to proprietary software, getting things to work with FOSS is challenge enough)
About being sexy, it is a wiki. It's purpose is not really atracting new people, it is communicating in a simple and understandable way. There was a discussion about a homepage, with the result that we will focus on attracting new people first when we have enough accessible content to keep them interested.
@JQL the community is here because collaboration is more fun than working alone, the wiki is here because it turns out that some of us have lots of hard-won knowledge that needs to be shared - Even for people who have been doing it for years the BIM world looks like a crazy soup of acronyms, and we need to know what technologies and standards are worth bothering-with.
There have been a lot of false starts over the years, dead mailing lists, promising tools that faded away (pythoncad anyone?), but this time freecad has substantial momentum, and blenderbim seems like such an obvious idea in retrospect. The risk is that a hundred thousand architects who are already familiar with Blender all adopt blenderbim at the same time, this needs to be a good experience all around, Dion alone can't support even a small part of the potential userbase. This could be the lull before the storm, blenderbim is being developed with a small audience who are knowledgable and familiar with free software development, and that can contribute positively, for now.
The umbrella expression is a strong one. I don't think I came up with it but it made sense for me to make a frame of mind. Maybe the chain expression is better as it describes a workflow with links.
It's important to be or not in the chain because users like me would want to know who is involved and in what way. Who is who,what software does what and if we trust the people behind are actively seeking their place in the chain or not, or in what kind of way they will commit to make the chain work by fulfilling their link.
If we were discussing a single software here, we would want it to evolve until the point we were expecting it to. If we are talking about several different apps we should know if they commit or not to get to the point they need to get to form their link in the chain.
Regarding the sexy looking site, I am now interested in following this. I had to investigate through a lot of stuff until I formed my idea of what OSArch is. It's probably still a wrong idea, how many of us users will get through the process I did just to know more about this?
A wiki like the one that exists is good for people that are involved in the process already but people must first be aware of this in a simple and straightforward way. Building a sexy and straight forward with will help with initial engagement, with getting more people on board and it doesn't need to offer them a product, it just needs to inform them of what's happening and that it's wip but the goal is cool. If people wouldn't be interested in participating at this point, they could at least subscribe to follow news about it and get info when some milestone would be achieved.
Followers would be potential users in the future.
If the wiki could be sexy enough then great, if not, then having a front side besides the wiki could help OSArch by clearly stating what it is, what's at stake and how is development of related software or workflow objectives.
Then they could jump to the forum, download some pieces of software and experiment, enroll on development or simply wait until further news.
If the whole idea is more appealing and simply presented, people will probably have more interest in following development.
@JanF I've seen your wiki page at that link and I must tell you that if I had bumped into it in a first moment I wouldn't have had so many confusion and duh moments.
@brunopostle I agree with everything you said. Would you say OSArch is based mainly in these two apps?
Why not create robust info about them within OSarch and start from there. They are solid starting ground with tremendous potential. People must know what they are capable of (FreeCAD is at a different state) and how they can get involved. Right now what's needed exactly and how can we contribute is really hard to tell for people coming from outside.
Users like me, without programming knowledge, that are not using blender nor FreeCAD, will feel particularly left out.
@JQL said:
Besides the structure of the wiki not being clear, the image of the wiki also doesn't help at all. It's confusing for me. Is there any better looking platforms that can make OSArch more sexy without loosing the editing capabilities of a wiki?
It looks like you can do different skins for the Wiki. I have no experience with this and it may be more difficult then it looks to implement.
A review with some good looking ones: https://bluespice.com/top-10-mediawiki-skins/
EDiT:
Actually this is the wiki structure, the frontpage is not from the wiki skin, it's a regular page. The wiki is also well organized and easy to read: https://www.physio-pedia.com/Physiopedia:About
It just lacks the subscribe newsletter.
"Want to know about OSArch progress?
Sign the newsletter and we'll let you know when the next milestone is achieved."
It would be an important feature of the site to bump up interest of people that once came and then were gone without involving themselves. If certain milestones would be reached or new workflows would arise, people could engage again.
Great discussion! Thanks @JQL for taking the time to share your impressions. I've got too many other things on my plate just now to work much on the wiki.
I think what @JanF has been doing looks great and I think Jan, you should just implement it. I like how you try to bring example workflows more to peoples attention.
@Moult could you add a text to the main osarch.org page? https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JanF
"The Open-Source Architecture Community brings together like-minded users and developers who share a common goal: that the built environment can be designed, constructed, operated, and recycled with free/libre software and open-source software with increased transparency, and a more ethical approach. We're creating a place where everyone involved in the built environment's conception and life can meet, inspire and collaborate to develop empowering digital tools. "
@JQL you raised the question of an 'umbrella' which is a very important discussion. Please continue that discussion on governance if you want to discuss that further here https://community.osarch.org/discussion/comment/2394#Comment_2394 (where I see you've joined in)
Now that you've helped us focus on what is unclear you can maybe help us improve our communication.
From last meeting, i just want to raise attention about youtube/any video as documentation support.
The main issue with fast envolving dev is documentation validity over time, often more troublesome than it should, as old features may remains while removed / changed in the code.
I guess the same will apply with documentation about workflows.
@JanF and @duncan please feel free to edit the front page with your initiatives :) No need to ask for permission! There is a saying in FOSS - those who do the work, make the decisions.
@duncan and what are the vehicles for communication here?
For OSArch I see:
site
wiki
forum
For BlenderBIM I see:
site
OSArch forum
...
I'm not pro in communications, my own office's social networks are lousy... it's all based on word of mouth and eye on eye contact.
In this case @JanF is talking about tutorials. A youtube channel should be there, for instance. But is it OSArch's or is it BlenderBIM. They do look blended as if they are the same sometimes. Maybe a clearer separation would benefit communication and would help more people feel OSArch as neutral ground and join in.
But then, should there be a clear separation between OSArch and BlenderBIM or other software that wants to join? Should each software should have it's own in house publications and then OSArch could republish and provide wider scope in the forum, as well as Publish interdepent workflows, and provide info on how to relate stuff.
Could OSARch also also provide some kind of newsletter for AEC OpenSource and free software?
Or should it be that OSArch, as the "umbrella", that centers in itself all communication, tutorials and also workflows for the apps that decide to join in? Like a mother company that specializes in "marketing" and feed it's subcompanies.
The umbrella expression was not the best for everyone so I imagine this is not the path. However, having a community of users that helps building tutorials and workflows is where most of us could probably be helpful for the developers.
Comments
@baswein Can you spell out for me what you mean? Do you mean like which software has a contact person/active user in osarch? That could be done. Just now I'm thinking more along the lines of what tags we would use that make finding the software you want easy. Similar to the current sections of the software list.
@bitacovir has pointed out that a list is a very good way for people to get a quick view of what's around. I agree, I don't think tags/categories can fully replace a list. My interest in bringing this up is for tags on the software pages so that one can go from one software page with a list of 'capability tags' directly to list of other packages with the same 'capability tags'. Just like now if you find Blender, it leads you to the Blender Addons list (category).
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Blender
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Category:Blender_Add-on
But making a list of functional descriptions would require a team effort.
@duncan exactly- a software that is actively being used by one of the members is more likely to be of use to someone else vs a software that is not used by anyone on the forum but on paper seems useful. Also some of the software on the list are libraries or primarily dependencies or are used as plugins to other software. Here is a clumsy example that might be headed in the right direction: I use QGIS everyday so that could be tagged a Used by OSArch member however Grass GIS I don't use the GUI directly but I do use it to run certain functions though QGIS GUI so that would be tagged as Used by OSArch member through another software and QGIS uses GDAL as a library so that would be used as a library by OSArch member.
Obviously this needs work but what I am trying to get at is some way to get the softwares that are actively used by members to float to the top in some way. Maybe it's stars or something.
@baswein I've wondered about an agreed statement of intent people can 'sign'. On each software page there can then be a list of 'members' who use that software. Does that sound useful?
I've been working a bit on the front page. I think it's getting there. Behind the scenes there is now more structure to the pages so we can rework the front page to make more use of main software/subject pages supplemented by links to categories. I'd like a good GIS image if someone has one to share.
I've made a stub page for https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=OpenFOAM
Feel free to help expand it. Who are our OpenFOAM users here?
I might suggest in prioritize efforts in one unique workflow, and make that workflow for the main branch, for example for create links and diagrams.
Similar to this:
... pulling efforts in multiple directions do not look efficient
PD: we need more diagrams, gift, videos, templates, samples, etc.
Another suggestion is to implement BCF API to the server, with BFC API the website might create a collaboration interface similar to Facebook and Twitter, I mean convert OSARCH in a BIM server
That's a good question ... I have used it "indirectly" through a 3rd party service for wind analysis (www.simscale.com) so I wouldn't consider myself a user. I think it will be a challenge find OpenFOAM users in this group as it is mostly used by mechanical engineers. Let's see.
@duncan the work you are doing is invaluable!!
I think that @baswein's idea to associate usability of software and libraries by OSArch members makes sense. Not sure what is the best format but it resonates strongly with me, I think it would give better visibility of what we use and for what people can also look for support, advice, etc.
a feature is in my wish list is to a section with requests and votes talking about our wish list for other forums.
example 1:
sweet home 3d users need import export IFC files, but a request in the forum is read after months and in this case, the developers do not finish the work because they think none want that feature, if we do a post and receive multiple votes, the developer might notice that such feature is needed.
http://www.sweethome3d.com/support/forum/viewthread_thread,10345
example 2:
if many people vote a post for request a LibreCAD 3 add support for AutoLisp and 3D drawing, then we might share our post with many votes to the developers and they might prioritize that feature.
https://forum.librecad.org/AutoLisp-translator-to-Lua-td5719472.html
That seems like it could be useful. I guess it starts to open up governance questions like what does it mean to be a member. And what would it mean, and what would it take, for a software to be approved by the OSArch community.
I'm going to post some thoughts on governance in a different there this in different thread.
Great! I'm guessing I'll have something to say - I usually do. I like what you've written in the 'Vision for OSArch' thread. Maybe just keep talking there ...
For the sake of this discussion I think adding an account to the wiki and adding a name under a statement should be enough. No need to get formal before we have a governance structure. It's all just about building the group and the usefulness of the website - real governance takes time.
@Jesusbill thanks!
@jtm2020hyo you've got lots of interesting I like to hear how you think some of them can be implemented and what you think would give the project the most value for the least effort. Maybe that's a place to start. For now, I'd love to see if you could add some things to the main software list. https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Free_Software_directory
I've added a category of categories and linked to it from the front page. My reasoning (and this is relevant to @jtm2020hyo post with the great mindmap) is that the relationship between software tools is neither linear non one-to-one. One package has a relationship to many others and can be relevant at many stages in a workflow. To me this means that categories need to be the backbone of the site structure. We can make as many workflows as we want, and they are important, but I think being able to find things based on their relationship to each other is primary.
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Category:Categories
@JanF you've made a few suggestions about the structure of the wiki, the front page, translations, etc. Maybe we could talk about that here? You've been doing some work on the BlenderBIM pages, do you have some thoughts on ways of organising the pages? Does it work okay with the banners that link to categories? It seems like a way to grow fast and flexibly until we have a really structured approach.
Yeah I thought we'd continue on the talk page as you suggested, but as it doesn't give notifications it's rather slow. I'll prepare my take on the main page as you said and post my thoughts here.
@duncan I've added my version of the main page to my talk (it's a draft, please handle with care)
I like the banners a lot.
Here are some very basic thoughts from the discussion we had in the monthly meetup today.
We need to make our purpose and identity clearer. Are we promoting a single solution or an ecosystem of tools? (hint: it's an ecosystem). A focus on workflows is good - but we don't have good examples on the wiki yet. I've questioned this approach before since some tools are used at several stages in a process. There are some projects in the works now and maybe the Open Source House or wikilab could get some more attention? https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AECO_Workflow_Examples
Other than that there was not too much to say, I can only suggest that people go and take a look at the wiki and see if the structure works. The structural decisions we make on the wiki now are going to stick with us for a while into the future.
Hi all,
I'm a bit critic of the current form of communication of the purpose of OSArch. From the point of view of someone arriving just now, there's no clear purpose stated for what is OSArch and what is the purpose of the community behind it.
I came here first searching for info on BlenderBIM, because I hadn't find much until then. Actually it was google that thrown me in while I was exploring BlenderBIM. I started by loosing interest in OSArch as I thought it was a forum for discussing open source software for architecture in general and it was not specific of BlenderBIM, but then I didn't see any other place to discuss blenderBIM and seen lot of posts about it so thought it was mainly for BlenderBIM and people that wanted to get involved with it. I got into the meeting thinking I would discuss about BlenderBIM and finally I understood that I was almost right at first impression.
The first impression was in end August, and I'm understanding what's happening only almost 15 days later. It's probably a problem in me, but I guess more people will have it.
The way I see it now, the purpose of OSArch is not so much to find FOSS alternatives to standard Architectural workflows, it rather is finding the right alternatives and the developers/users that want to bridge together to create a functional workflow. So, aggregating those alternatives into the same umbrella which is OSArch, means that they will all remain as independent as they wish but will contribute to be a part of a chain where they work seamlessly together.
I hope I got it right this time.
If this is so, this has to be stated from the start in the frontpage and also in the forum.
Another issue is separating what software is already under the umbrella of OSArch and is trying to build bridges with each other from softwre is not under the umbrella but is interesting for the objectives of OSArch or OSArch relies on it:
Being under the umbrella doesn't mean software has to follow what OSArch determines, it just means that a specific software is trying to work well within the objectives of OSArch and, therefore, bridging well together with software already under the umbrella.
Blender is clearly not under OSArch, but it's essential for OSArch purposes. Blender Foundation could eventually at some point, support OSArch, or develop work to make better bridges with OSArch software, if OSArch needs it and pledges for it.
Is FreeCAD like Blender or is it part of OSArch already or is it more willing to be a part of OSArch at this point?
Then there is huge a repository of FOSS AEC software and it is very interesting to have in the site and keep it updated.
However most of that software is not related to OSArch at any level, or even aware of what OSArch is and what are the objectives. Software that is not activelly working to build bridges, or sofware which is not part of any workflow, should remain at the repository because otherwise it will only bring confusion up. If a user finds a software and demonstrates it's usefulness for any OSArch workflow, then it should be mentioned specifically even if that software isn't collaborating.
From this repository we might also identify specific software that is particularly interesting for OSArch's objectives, and then it's OSArch that should reach out to them expose them a clear objective and ask them to join and work for that objective, where they would then agree to be a part of OSArch. If they are not interested, either they are useful as they are and need not change, and they should be mentioned in the OSArch workflow (like libreoffice and others) or it is OSArch that might need to find alternative software to fill the gap, or build the bridges by themselves.
There is also the matter of proprietary software and how OSArch software bridges with it. There is some random mention of Revit in the wiki but it's not clear from the start why is it mentioned. If the idea is to start using some of OSArch software to fill the gaps of other software, then there should be a dedicated section just for that. As users from the community show examples of how they use OSArch software to complement they're usual tools, the wiki should show those too.
So, for me, the organization of the site should be clearer and more related to OSARch's objectives and I would suggest something like this:
1 - What is OSArch?
1.1 - Find FOSS that can be connected for a full workflow or for several smaller workflows for all sectors and stages of the AEC Industry;
1.2 - Develop FOSS that can replace proprietary software for all stages of the workflow or for more workflows for specific tasks;
1.3 - Gather a community of users and developers around the objective of perfecting OSArch software and workflows.
2 - Examples of what has been made using OSArch software and workflows.
2.1 - Examples of what can be done using specific software - be clear about potential and limitations;
2.2 - Examples of what can be done using a specific workflow - example: using this and this people can create a IFC MEP model to use with Trimble Connect.
2.3 - Examples of projects fully developed using OSARch software (this will take time and it's too ambitious for now, but it's nice to state that there are no examples yet, or that it's not yet possible, though that is the objective).
3 - What software is part of the OSArch workflow?
3.1 - BlenderBIM - how to use and what's it's roll on the workflow;
3.2 - Archipack - how to use and what's it's roll on the workflow;
3.3 - (sorry for my lack of knowledge)...
4 - Other FOSS software for AEC not related to OSArch:
4.1 - Repository
5 - Workflows
5.1 - Description of workflows to achieve specific tasks using exclusively FOSS;
5.2 - Description of workflows to develop a full project using FOSS.
5.3 - Integrating OSArch software with proprietary Software. How to use OSARch software with:
5.3.1 - Revit;
5.3.2 - Archicad;
5.3.3 - Rhino;
5.3.4 - Sketchup;
5.3.5 - AutoCAD;
5.3.6 - (...)
6 - OSArch Community:
6.1 - Use, test and give feedback on the OSARch software;
6.2 - Get envolved on helping develop OSArch software;
6.3 - Suggest FOSS software or methodologies to improve the workflow or fill gaps in workflow;
6.4 - Suggest more ways on how to use OSArch software to complement proprietary software.
6.3 - Create software to fill the gap in OSArch workflow.
Besides the structure of the wiki not being clear, the image of the wiki also doesn't help at all. It's confusing for me. Is there any better looking platforms that can make OSArch more sexy without loosing the editing capabilities of a wiki?
@JQL can you check the draft I prepared on my talk page? (and perhaps put yours together too?)
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JanF
Also pinging @duncan for the wiki mainpage discussion.
I have mostly similar opinion on the matter. The only thing I am not so certain about is the focus on software being and not being "under the umbrella". Why is it so important to you? As far as I know, only BlenderBIM and Freecad are developed with the active focus on OSArch. (and also the connection to proprietary software, getting things to work with FOSS is challenge enough)
About being sexy, it is a wiki. It's purpose is not really atracting new people, it is communicating in a simple and understandable way. There was a discussion about a homepage, with the result that we will focus on attracting new people first when we have enough accessible content to keep them interested.
@JQL the community is here because collaboration is more fun than working alone, the wiki is here because it turns out that some of us have lots of hard-won knowledge that needs to be shared - Even for people who have been doing it for years the BIM world looks like a crazy soup of acronyms, and we need to know what technologies and standards are worth bothering-with.
There have been a lot of false starts over the years, dead mailing lists, promising tools that faded away (pythoncad anyone?), but this time freecad has substantial momentum, and blenderbim seems like such an obvious idea in retrospect. The risk is that a hundred thousand architects who are already familiar with Blender all adopt blenderbim at the same time, this needs to be a good experience all around, Dion alone can't support even a small part of the potential userbase. This could be the lull before the storm, blenderbim is being developed with a small audience who are knowledgable and familiar with free software development, and that can contribute positively, for now.
The umbrella expression is a strong one. I don't think I came up with it but it made sense for me to make a frame of mind. Maybe the chain expression is better as it describes a workflow with links.
It's important to be or not in the chain because users like me would want to know who is involved and in what way. Who is who,what software does what and if we trust the people behind are actively seeking their place in the chain or not, or in what kind of way they will commit to make the chain work by fulfilling their link.
If we were discussing a single software here, we would want it to evolve until the point we were expecting it to. If we are talking about several different apps we should know if they commit or not to get to the point they need to get to form their link in the chain.
Regarding the sexy looking site, I am now interested in following this. I had to investigate through a lot of stuff until I formed my idea of what OSArch is. It's probably still a wrong idea, how many of us users will get through the process I did just to know more about this?
A wiki like the one that exists is good for people that are involved in the process already but people must first be aware of this in a simple and straightforward way. Building a sexy and straight forward with will help with initial engagement, with getting more people on board and it doesn't need to offer them a product, it just needs to inform them of what's happening and that it's wip but the goal is cool. If people wouldn't be interested in participating at this point, they could at least subscribe to follow news about it and get info when some milestone would be achieved.
Followers would be potential users in the future.
If the wiki could be sexy enough then great, if not, then having a front side besides the wiki could help OSArch by clearly stating what it is, what's at stake and how is development of related software or workflow objectives.
Then they could jump to the forum, download some pieces of software and experiment, enroll on development or simply wait until further news.
If the whole idea is more appealing and simply presented, people will probably have more interest in following development.
@JanF I've seen your wiki page at that link and I must tell you that if I had bumped into it in a first moment I wouldn't have had so many confusion and duh moments.
@brunopostle I agree with everything you said. Would you say OSArch is based mainly in these two apps?
Why not create robust info about them within OSarch and start from there. They are solid starting ground with tremendous potential. People must know what they are capable of (FreeCAD is at a different state) and how they can get involved. Right now what's needed exactly and how can we contribute is really hard to tell for people coming from outside.
Users like me, without programming knowledge, that are not using blender nor FreeCAD, will feel particularly left out.
It looks like you can do different skins for the Wiki. I have no experience with this and it may be more difficult then it looks to implement.
A review with some good looking ones:
https://bluespice.com/top-10-mediawiki-skins/
Hi @baswein
This one seemed nice:
https://www.physio-pedia.com/home/
It's based on this skin:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Chameleon
EDiT:
Actually this is the wiki structure, the frontpage is not from the wiki skin, it's a regular page. The wiki is also well organized and easy to read:
https://www.physio-pedia.com/Physiopedia:About
It just lacks the subscribe newsletter.
"Want to know about OSArch progress?
Sign the newsletter and we'll let you know when the next milestone is achieved."
It would be an important feature of the site to bump up interest of people that once came and then were gone without involving themselves. If certain milestones would be reached or new workflows would arise, people could engage again.
Great discussion! Thanks @JQL for taking the time to share your impressions. I've got too many other things on my plate just now to work much on the wiki.
I think what @JanF has been doing looks great and I think Jan, you should just implement it. I like how you try to bring example workflows more to peoples attention.
@Moult could you add a text to the main osarch.org page? https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:JanF
"The Open-Source Architecture Community brings together like-minded users and developers who share a common goal: that the built environment can be designed, constructed, operated, and recycled with free/libre software and open-source software with increased transparency, and a more ethical approach. We're creating a place where everyone involved in the built environment's conception and life can meet, inspire and collaborate to develop empowering digital tools. "
@JQL you raised the question of an 'umbrella' which is a very important discussion. Please continue that discussion on governance if you want to discuss that further here https://community.osarch.org/discussion/comment/2394#Comment_2394 (where I see you've joined in)
Now that you've helped us focus on what is unclear you can maybe help us improve our communication.
From last meeting, i just want to raise attention about youtube/any video as documentation support.
The main issue with fast envolving dev is documentation validity over time, often more troublesome than it should, as old features may remains while removed / changed in the code.
I guess the same will apply with documentation about workflows.
@JanF and @duncan please feel free to edit the front page with your initiatives :) No need to ask for permission! There is a saying in FOSS - those who do the work, make the decisions.
@duncan and what are the vehicles for communication here?
For OSArch I see:
For BlenderBIM I see:
...
I'm not pro in communications, my own office's social networks are lousy... it's all based on word of mouth and eye on eye contact.
In this case @JanF is talking about tutorials. A youtube channel should be there, for instance. But is it OSArch's or is it BlenderBIM. They do look blended as if they are the same sometimes. Maybe a clearer separation would benefit communication and would help more people feel OSArch as neutral ground and join in.
But then, should there be a clear separation between OSArch and BlenderBIM or other software that wants to join? Should each software should have it's own in house publications and then OSArch could republish and provide wider scope in the forum, as well as Publish interdepent workflows, and provide info on how to relate stuff.
Could OSARch also also provide some kind of newsletter for AEC OpenSource and free software?
Or should it be that OSArch, as the "umbrella", that centers in itself all communication, tutorials and also workflows for the apps that decide to join in? Like a mother company that specializes in "marketing" and feed it's subcompanies.
The umbrella expression was not the best for everyone so I imagine this is not the path. However, having a community of users that helps building tutorials and workflows is where most of us could probably be helpful for the developers.