Creating good open documentation is time-consuming, but essential for the development of an OSH project and the establishment of a community. The new community review process in accordance with DIN Spec 3105 is as labour-intensive as it is worthwhile, because it takes OSH projects a good deal further.
Now that DIN Spec 3105 on open source hardware has been officially published in 2020, questions such as:
- Does it even make sense to regulate open source hardware?
- Can open source hardware be made more reliable and professional with this DIN Spec?
- Is DIN Spec 3105 sufficient to do justice to the diversity of open source hardware projects?
- Do the guidelines and processes set out there even make sense?
To find out, we began taking a closer look at 15 OSH projects at the start of 2021.
Documentation preparation
In the first phase, we support the projects in preparing their documentation for the review process:
Is a parts list available? Are there assembly instructions or drawings? Are the files in a format that meets the requirements of the DIN Spec? According to DIN Spec, both the source file (modifiability) and, if applicable, an export format (rebuildability) must be available for all project-specific parts so that each part can be easily modified and reprinting or rebuilding is also possible without any special programmes. For a more detailed overview, the official DIN Spec 3105 can be viewed here.
Do you know a project that is interested in improving its documentation?
Reviewer search and process design
We then set out to find reviewers for the individual projects. For each project, there should be two reviewers whose prior knowledge should roughly match the project’s subject area. Some projects suggested interested people on their own initiative, while we looked for other reviewers in the open source ecology community.
Would you like to review open source hardware documentation?
Although the DIN Spec provides a rough framework for the review (at least two reviewers and a Conformity Assessment Body), it is rather vague with regard to the process. We, the Open Source Ecology Germany e.V., are now acting as the “Conformity Assessment Body” institution for the first time with this project and our task is to organise and accompany this review process and then archive both the process documentation and the reviewed project documentation.
In order to develop an initial process prototype, we have decided in favour of the association’s own Gitlab. All projects and the associated reviews can be looked up here.
Findings from the community reviews
In the course of the community reviews of the 15 or so projects from the last six months, we have learnt a lot.
“Great experience for testing this on GitLab. Keep getting feedback will definitely improve the process!”
Reviewer Feedback
1. rebuilders are the best reviewers.
A reviewer who is interested in subsequently rebuilding the project looks very closely at the documentation and also considers it from the point of view of rebuildability. This led to very helpful comments and helped the projects to progress.
2. open source hardware projects benefit twice over.
The documentation of an OSH project benefits enormously from a critical and independent four-eye principle. Incomprehensible component descriptions are avoided, missing quantities are discovered – and sometimes a few pictures are simply needed to adequately illustrate the instructions.
The review process also supports community building, as the review brings at least two people closer to the project, forcing them to engage with it intensively.
3. motivation as a success factor
Of course, everything depends on the amount of time the projects take and the motivation of the reviewers. Unfortunately, we were unable to start the review process for two projects because the documentation was not ready in time. Unfortunately, three other projects could not be awarded the title of Open Source Hardware because requested important improvements to the documentation had not yet taken place.
4. platform-independent reviewing
A project benefits all the more from analysing its documentation if the reviewers use the project’s own platform rather than our association platform, as this allows them to test the structure of the documentation and participation options across different platforms and websites at the same time.
“We have managed to support open source hardware projects with their documentation and bring them into dialogue with the community.”
CAB ADMIN Feedback
Community review by rebuilding
After these intensive and empty first review runs, we can now confirm that it makes sense to check the documentation of open source hardware in order to improve it. Not only will the projects benefit from this, it will also make it easier for future rebuilders and facilitate potential further developments.
Nevertheless, the question often arose: Wouldn’t I have to rebuild the OSH product for a complete review?
Correct, theoretical checking of rebuildability is error-prone and therefore does not replace an actual rebuild, because if a project has actually been rebuilt, this proves better than anything else that the documentation is sufficient. If such a rebuild is now combined with the developed review process, a project can then be quite sure that the documentation is complete and correct.
This is where the journey should take us. In the association’s follow-up projects, OSH projects will not only be tested in theory, but also reproduced in practice. And the DIN Spec(Community Repo) will also be expanded to include this aspect. So it remains exciting. Do you want to lend a hand with rebuilding or reviewing? Do you know of any projects that could benefit from a review process?
Call for Action
Can you think of any open source hardware projects that would be interested in a community review?
Do you want to become active yourself and support projects in providing better documentation? Then sign up as a reviewer!
Do you know of a project that should definitely be recreated?
Then always bring it to us: Contact
“DIN is a respected institution. It’s important for me to have this certification.“
“My project documentation improved thanks to this program.“
Project Community Feedback
We would like to thank the Postcode Lottery for funding this project and the many volunteer reviewers who have given their time to make our project possible.
[1] https://gitlab.opensourceecology.de/verein/projekte/cab
[2] https://blog.opensourceecology.de/de/category/ose-community
[3] https://din.one/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36603169
[4] https://gitlab.com/OSEGermany/OHS-3105
