Please use this topic (and only this topic) to comment on the entries of the global Fab Lab portal at fablab.org
1 Like
Hello,
I wrote to you because our fablab is yet registered in this portal but we can’t manage it (i sent many mail in the last months).
What’s the problem? What can i do?
Thank you
You are posting in the wrong discussion, please refer to the correct thread
Hi Peter,
Which one exactly? Cause I’ve quiet the same question for Swiss National Association (fablabs.ch), in the organisations field, and no response till now.
Many thx in advance und Liebe GrĂĽsse vo Schwiiz 
Matthieu
well, the blunt reply is that fablabs.io is overambitious and dysfunctional. You can quote me on this. I’ll check what I can do for you about fablab.ch. Can you do something for me? I’m still holding (and paying for) the fablab.ch domain … are you guys in a position to take it over?
Yeah thx Peter!
Course we are ready ; with our constitution and the brand new site on https://fablabs.ch (automatic certificate renewing is still missing). Let me know by MP when you’re ready for the technical aspects with our Webmaster
Hi @Megahub, actually @mverderau replied to your e-mails but you didn’t reply to him, that’s why the process stopped.
Please keep the discussion by e-mail there (write to webmasters@fablabs.io), here it is off-topic.
If you want to discuss it publicly, the thread of your lab is here: Discussion about Megahub
… like many things in the Fab Lab (and Maker world), including this thread 
Feedback and complaints should be posted in the Site Feedback category, here now the discussion is going completely off-topic 
@trox maybe you should describe a bit more fablab.org, most likely nobody knows about it
Thank you Peter, keeping the spirit going. I think you dont know the approval process of fablabs.io, that explains the dysfunctional answer. And you talking about overambition is just marvelous, part of the paradoxical world we are living in. In Spanish we say: es facil ver los toros desde la barrera. As I say, keep the constructive spirit going 
The Swiss Fab Foundation is now in the Organizations section here: https://www.fablabs.io/organizations/swiss-fab-foundation
Since this section is completely new, we welcome any suggestion and help in its development!
Hi @openp2pdesign,
Thx for the improvement firstly.
But why did you not simply validate our requested orgs : https://www.fablabs.io/organizations/swiss-fab-labs ?
Thx again for your support.
Matthieu
yes, in Dutch we have the expression “de beste stuurlui staan aan de wal” (the best steersmen are onshore).
I think that the idea of peer approval of labs is the perfect one. But I dare to challenge the way it is implemented.
We’ve suggested that local/regional associations should also play a role, and we’ve indicated that the way “referee labs” are chosen is at least intransparent. The way how “seniority” is attributed to labs is described nowhere.
On all these suggestions we had little to no response from those in charge implementing the rules. I often call Fab Labs a self inflicted social experiment. This is part of it.
2 Likes
Hi @openp2pdesign ,
I don’t receive mail from @mverderau: can he send it again to formazione@megahub.it?
Thank you
Peter, I totally agree with you, but all thing must have a beginning. The FabLabs listed as referees are the ones that in some way are represented or known by people involved in this site, Fab Foundation and the global network itself. In the future, we should have a way to add labs to the referee list according some criteria, maybe we can propose that improvement and work towards its implementation.
For this particular topic, could you elaborate more about fablabs.org? The site isn’t self explanatory.
Thanks!
1 Like
I don’t know about fablabs.org … I only know fablab.org
There are plans to set up a portal to the many sites in the FabLab ecosystem under the domain fablab.org (see beta.fablab.org) which needs to be implemented and hopefully will be implemented as soon as there is capacity to do so.
(see https://github.com/fablaborg/fablaborg.github.io/issues/4)
1 Like
Thanks for making this transparent in writing.
It’s key for the network to function that new labs connect to the network. That means the list needs to be geographically balanced, which could benefit from some improvement.
Furthermore it has long been proposed that the local/national foundations should become part of that list, too. Many people would appreciate if this could be realized in the short term.
Not sure if it applies in this case, seems to be bombs from the distance…
Thanks, then you know how it works, I think it helps to explain people how it does, networks scale by the action of their actors, if @Megahub would receive that explanation, I think it would help some how… the idea is that labs get in touch between themselves
I disagree, but lets discuss it. I think that regional networks should gain their relevance for what they give to labs. For years now we have seen how different associations/foundations have been trying to become an umbrella of Fab Lab Networks, I think Fab Labs are mature enough to make these decisions. As you can see, some people recognise the leadership of some labs, specially in the Fab Academy, where a lot of things happen. Also this never has been published: https://www.fablabs.io/labs/docs/approval_process would be happy on working to make it more clear
In relation to the visibility of regional organisations: https://www.fablabs.io/organizations
This is a massive experiment, happy of be part of it. At the scale we are reaching I think it will need more articulation and constructivism, also understand the fablabs.io is completely funded and developed by Fab Lab Barcelona, and have been trying to make it grow during the last years. Now with @openp2pdesign we expect to make it closer to the network and hopefully fundraise to take it to the next level and improve it…
I cannot speak for all regional network. Some are just starting (like the French), others have been around for decades and played an important role in developing the global network (like the BeNeLux).
So speaking for the BeNeLux – we are very keen to nurture the regional network, organizing low key meetings several times a year, often to introduce new technologies such as the micro:bit. We have set up a fab lab introductory course where we explain how the network works (including signing up at fablabs.io, we work together with the government and help the labs participate in national activities like the platform maker education, we attract sponsorship that fully benefits the labs, not the umbrella. This is not about leadership in the network, it is about stewardship of the network.
I see two benefits of adding the regional networks to the list of referees: (1) it often is the most close to home point of contact for a lab (if it’s not they are doing something wrong), and (2) it helps the regional network to be aware of new labs joining the community.
To be cristal clear: of the three referees maximum one should be a regional organisation. The others should be peers. And global umbrellas (Fab Foundation, International Fab Lab Association, the Fab City Global Initiative (somewhat hesitant about that)) should not qualify as referees.