Via Sherry, one "firstname.lastname@example.org" complained about the "conditions for FabLab label" -- but although invited could not bother to add the discussion to the relevant page. So on his behalf and because I feel the discussion is an important one, I add his complaints for everybody to react:
Date: Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Subject: Fablab only for the rich
I would like to provide my feedback on the idea to constraint the FABLAB logo, something that I have seen done by the Island fablab :
A single process equal in all fablab is equal to killl any innovation . This would bring fablab to the level of a standard prototyping copyshop. all using the same 2 software and 3 machines ?
To have the same set of machines is opening a huge discussion that could be not transparet, with also including the doupts of bribery , because the machine producers are very interested, very interested. (nice roland link on island page : http://www.fablab.is/w/index.php/Portal:Equiment )
Fablab is also doing things Low cost , developing low cost process , but the direction is now to disqualify all the fablab that can not get at least 50000 Euro . Forget any African country , any poor country ...
Fablab is now only for the Rich !!!!!
Thanks Regards Riccardo .
P.S: innovation does not follow a standard process, do we want to do that ?
End forwarded message
What do we mean by "common"?
Apart from the apparent misconception that this wiki is Icelandic only ;) there seems to be a misconception about what we mean by "a common set of tools and processes".
Obviously Riccardo understands this as "exactly the same tools and processes" -- which is not the case; we are quite explicit that brands are unimportant -- so ihmo there is no need for discussion, just encouragement to "read on".
Riccardo states: "A single process equal in all fablab is equal to killl any innovation" -- this is so true. But I cannot see where he's getting his single process from, and it leaves me wondering, if he has been at a FabLab at all.
Lastly: there are enough examples of labs in Africa (and even in Europe!) who did not need spending 50k (or rather 90k which is the current inventory according to the MIT list) but that are perfectly able to act as a FabLab. --trox [at] fabfolk [.] com 10:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Common (comment by Amy via email)
For my quick two cents I have always preferred the definition of the word common to be "widespread" as in "commonly available" rather than to mean "strictly the same".
I think the ultimate fab lab test will be closer to "can anyone make anything" especially without crushing amounts of specialized training. As we spread beyond technically or educational crowds I think we will need to rewrite our higher level explanatory texts in this manner.