I agree with Alberto. There should be created an overall vision path and see if and how this could fit in it. I also see a lot of people having a hard time finding all information needed. But coming back to the topic of this Loomio proposal; what I see as the biggest benefit of doing this is that you can reach through this Prusa platform more makers with designing skills, also the design contests can be really beneficial. I think we should use this platform mainly to get some more development going. If it is needed to get this development going, we can add the most recommended designs on an e-NABLE account on Printables. We can guide, in the group description on Printables, makers to the e-NABLE hub and to more designs on the devices catalogue on the hub.

@Sandra Dermisek Great strategy! I'll work on drafting this group description today and get it posted. We can specifically point out that volunteers aren't as needed for device fabrication - we need testers and designers. I think the huge benefit of printables will be potentially getting more of those designers so I think only posting really well-documented designs that are well-tested serves two purposes: 1) better curated experience for Printables volunteers - less confusion with what design to make 2) leading by example - designers will see the detail and quality of documentation eNABLE would like moving forward (imo thorough documentation should be a requirement for any approved designs).

@ebubar I totally agree with you, speaking generally about the overall vision mentioned before, I think we also need to consider and add another piece to the picture, a really important piece of the picture: in my opinion often there is a poor contact with the recipient after the delivery of the device, the recipients can instead provide feedbacks (both positive and negative) and suggestions for improvements. In my experience, even professional prosthetic devices require a continuous relationship between the end-user and the professional prosthetist so that they can be used in the best possible way. This approach I know that this is not always possible, however, when this opportunity exists, it could be valuable to catch it to try to obtain as much information as possible both to improve the device construction processes (and therefore documentation or testing) and to improve the devices themselves or ideas to create new ones based on the actual users' needs.

I have added a splash description for the tentative @eNABLE handle for printables:

Tentative eNABLE Description for Printables:

eNABLE is a global network of digital humanitarians using 3D printing to create upper limb prosthetics and assistive devices. All volunteers are welcome to print designs to help others, educate the public on upper limb differences and, critically, help create improve and create new devices! This curated list is an example of the most impactful and properly documented devices we suggest using and would like to see iteration on. For more designs and information on how to help as a volunteer visit https://hub.e-nable.org/s/e-nable-forum/wiki/Welcome+to+e-NABLE%21

I support increasing the face of the Enable world, but I also have to side with those presenting the confusion created by multiple outlets providing the files for printing.

There are several outlets in place to get files for the Enable hands and arms. As we update and create new designs, will we be able to sustain making updates to multiple outlets?

I see an increase in confusion for everyone, and trying to update every outlet a tough task. We should work out all the logistics to all this and bring this to fruition as soon as possible.

@Richard VanderMey I understand the sentiment. I also get that files are already on multiple places, but I attend ERRF every year and every year people ask where are your files? Can I get them on printables? etc. etc. I direct people to the HUB which I frankly think is confusing for most people. I also am not convinced that there is an explosion of design iteration. I don't notice updates to designs too regularly, at least not to the designs that are most highly used and well-tested. I wouldn't post every one-off and special case design, as I don't think that makes sense. I'm suggesting I just post a highly curated and limited set of models to get the interest of the printables community. Fixing confusion and updating multiple outlets is probably a great project but beyond the scope of what I'm asking. :)

I think the solution is that someONE (Eric?) is responsible for approving a design + doc as an Official Tested e-NABLE release. And then we need a process for updating Official Releases at Prusa, NIH 3D, etc.

@Jon Schull I would suggest to try to identify a small group of people to collaborate and all together to be responsible for this work, in that way we can avoid possible bottlenek due to the fact that the owner of this work item could get stuck at a certain point for any reason (I am not referring just to the initial activity proposed by @ebubar, I am talking in general)

@Alberto Navatta @Jon Schull I agree with Alberto that it shouldn't be one person to make a design an "Official e-NABLE Tested Release". Years ago I was the sole submission approval person and it did make for a bottleneck when people were submitting for badges and such. Is Loomio the place for this kind of project to avoid a bottleneck? If someone wants an officially approved design, can they simply post their design and the instructions to the Loomio and ask for approval as a "tested release"? I suppose we'd need to decide on a test protocol (i'd suggest the box and block test) and perhaps put a couple designs through as examples cases. I'd start with the Kwawu Arm 3 and the Kinetic Hand as templates for a loomio approval process to follow going forward. I think that's beyond the confines of this post but will start working on it. Thoughts?

I believe discussion has been open for the required time? Is it possible to move this to a voting proposal so I can (hopefully) get this started with printables soon?