Fantastic initiative! I hope to see it do well. The players locally here are all commited to continue playing as well. 
On the topic of new cards, I’m in the camp that does not see them as a necessity. Either way, Nisei OP will then have to split their attention to (at least) 2 game modes – with and without fan-made new cards – as you cannot force people to play with them. Depending on the size of the OP team, this can get very tricky.
My 2c at least.
Long time player (played 1st ed and Android since day 1), first time posting (here).
Love the idea of this. And I will support as I can.
But the elephant in the room… In your own FAQ the first thing said is not to tell the owners of the Netrunner IP. They will find out anyway! None of them are stupid and they will have employees who are tasked to search out IP infringements. How do you intend to tackle that when it does happen?
There is a difference between them being aware and people making direct contact. If direct contact is made they are legally obliged to step in and protect their IP, if they are aware (which we already know they are to some degree as FFG staff are members of the facebook group originally set up) it is more of a grey area where they can instead choose to follow it up if they wish.
So what are you planning on doing when they officially find out?
How would you illustrate this ?
I don’t know much people that want to play undead Netrunner with no illustration ?
That will be something for the board to decide once appointed. We have received some amount of legal advice though and already have a pretty good idea of what we can and can not do within the realms of reason.
The simple version of things is that if any licence holder wants to really come down on us we probably don’t have much choice beyond stopping but we also believe based on other such efforts and some advice that there are ways to achieve this project without stepping on too many toes.
Art is another thing that will have to be decided properly once the board is appointed. There has been a lot of discussion but until the leaders of the project are in place we are unable to make any decisions.
Cyberzombie Farm
Anarch - 3 inf
Resource: virtual - 3c - Unique
[Trash] prevent an end the run effect to fire.
“This is not over yet, snakes !”
– Reina
Shall we call the game UNR, now ?
(Undead NetRunner)
Are we talking about doing a card pool from existing cards or creating new cards altogether? The first one would be impossible to stop from a legal perspective, since it is really just a fan project.
I think building a card pool from existing cards is a good way to start and also add a rotation policy. I fear it will take too long before new cards can be developed, most will leave the game before that happens.
And I vote @spags for dictator! 
Again, nothing is concrete until the board is formed and decisions can start to be made. The intention is too address OP and tournament formats first as new card will, as you mention, take some time to do properly. New cards an highly unlikely to be a thing until 2019.
Just by way of example, I dimly recall an interview where someone asked Damon something about Jinteki.net, and he said “I don’t know what that is.”
A rights holder wouldn’t ever have any reason to “officially find out” unless they’ve specifically chosen to take action.
Forgive me for cross-posting from r/netrunner, but:
Has anyone considered Github (or another repository) as a way to organize this?
Ultimately, NISEI is going to mainly represent a central set of documents:
What if Netrunner was the same as F/OSS. The NISEI board has the keys to the main repository, but anyone in the community can submit bug reports (text changes) or fork the repository and offer major changes for consideration (merge).
In other words, the essence of a future Netrunner is a living (but singular) body of content that can be responsive to the community but, for practical reasons, may be run by a rotating committee of benevolent dictators. If the project tragically veers off course, it may well fork and be replaced – so it goes.
Fascinating idea when it comes to development and testing, but github is not a platform that’s inclusive to anyone who’s not a developer in the other sense. On some projects, changes get approved which are submitted by github users, whereas the non-github using majority feel blindsided and not consulted.
Design-by-submission-approval leads to a path of least resistance. It’s easier to approve a change than to either a) reject it and have a conversation about why, or b) approve the change but do what’s necessary to take that from a potential code change to a change that’s socialized with the community and who are on some level prepared for it.
I know it sounds corporate, but the leadership team needs to put together a vision statement and use that to build a roadmap which is shared with the whole community. That’s the best thing you can do to define what something is, but perhaps more critically what it isn’t.
Source: software product manager, experienced in the dark art of stakeholder theater.
Gitlab might be a better fit, simply because I think it’s fairly likely that the early competitive card design work won’t be public, and Gitlab lets free accounts create private repos.
On the other hand, for things like event calendars that will have more than a few users, using a git host does add a barrier to participation. Google Docs and specialized tools like Always Be Running may be better choices in some cases.
I think it’s much too early to pick tools regardless. The right tool for each part of this will depend on exactly what kind of collaboration we want to have, and I think the groundwork @nutritionalzero described is needed for figuring that out.
Source: enterprise s/w engineer/consultant
I agree that git mechanics are not particularly consumer-friendly, but nothing about a git repo precludes submission and approval. I also would never advocate a system that says git users are allowed, by merely dint of being git users, to directly apply changes upstream. Finally, in practice, even within GitHub, many (who knows?) changes are instigated by the issue threads.
GIt’s just a very transparent tool for organizing changes. As an example, instead of NISEI simply replacing their whole “MWL7.0” in one go, it could be staged (forked) and edited and merged (replaced). Joe Netrunner can certainly report errors to GitHub as issues, as well as Stimhack discussions, and Slack, and r/netrunner, etc. I think NIESEI could appoint a maintainer(s) responsible for QA edits and also someone versed in carrying out “official merges.” Sidenote, wiki exists as well and could be opened for more fluid, user-friendly, communication.
I mentioned calendars more in the sense of monumental community-wide things like NISEI WORLDS 2020. Routine organizational items like a store championship notice is probably not going into a git.
All of this said, the next best thing is wiki. I don’t know of a wiki-with-forks platform, but that would be cool.
Also, I agree all of this is premature BUT it’s exactly why it’s fun and useful to argue about now. The tool is a metaphor. Truth be told, I’m really excited by NISEI. It’s almost more exciting to me than FFG because the secrecy that had to surround FFG was kind of a painful conceit – I think for almost everyone involved. I would like to see a board of autocrats handing down decisions because I think the game needs rules and is hurt by ambiguity. But I’m thrilled by open discussions, podcasts, deliberations, crowd-sourcing, etc. all directly informing those decisions.
So where do we look for an analog? Software. It’s worked this way in many different configurations (Linus and his captains, or the Apache projects, or Guido and Python, etc) where the larger community generates a ton input, but the game, er repo, is generally in the hands of an expert body or bodies.
I already said a hundred times on slack that this is an amazing effort but I just wanted to say a huge thank you for actually naming the whole thing “NISEI” as well. I don’t believe I need to explain why this makes me 10 times more happy than it normally would have xD (thumbs up to the naming committee!)
Can’t wait to see what the community will do for the game from here forward!
Software development tools are for software developers. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone for whom filing an “issue” on Github to suggest a balance improvement for a card game would be a bewildering experience. You might as well just hang up a sign that says “you are not welcome here.” The fact that seemingly 50% of the Netrunner player base are devs actuallly makes it more important to challenge asssumptions about what the other 50% might find alienating.
An inclusive and transparent executive team would use tools that are as simple and available as possible to track feedback, report on progress, and communicate changes.
Honestly, I expect ANCUR to be repurposed for this usage. A Wiki seems like a pretty good place, along with a forum for announcements.
(Software dev)
Github is a great source control system.
And documents are not supposed to be in source control.
Been away for a long time, but I like this and it is great die-hard fans are pulling together for the game’s future.