[eagle] Re: A wild thought

[Alan Bloom]

Excellent idea.

Is this one at-large member who does ALL peer reviews for Eagle, or is
there one at-large member for EACH peer review?  I think it might get
burdensome for one person to have to all of them.

Alan



On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 16:58, Jim Sanford wrote:
> Team:
> I've been thinking about this for a while.  Recent publicity for Eagle 
> in multiple publications has resurrected the thought, so I seek your 
> comments.
> 
> I'm considering seeking, for each discrete peer review, an additional 
> review team member from AMSAT membership at large.
> 
> Heretofore we've collected peer review teams from a subset of Eagle team 
> members with possibly a few known additions.  I'm considering seeking a 
> single at-large reivewer from within AMSAT MEMBERSHIP.  In my vision, 
> I'd go out to amsat-bb and ANS and solicit qualified volunteers.  Such 
> volunteers would have to be verifiable members of AMSAT-NA or another 
> AMSAT organization, and would be asked to send me a resume or c.v.  I 
> would use these to select the MOST qualified volunteer for a single 
> at-large position on the peer review team.  (I say that I would make the 
> selection, mostly to keep the additional admin burden off you; if any of 
> you want to help me choose, thanks!)  I would be responsible for 
> forwarding that individual all necessary materials to do the peer 
> review.  I would be responsible for coordinating with Bob and Eric that 
> that at-large member would have access to the AMSAT Engineering channel 
> on TeamSpeak for that particularl peer review (the password changes for 
> each discrete topic.)
> 
> The advantages I see in this:
>     -- furthers our "openness" with deeds not words
>     -- gives motivated new talent an opportunity to share their 
> expertise with us
>     -- gives us a chance to evaluate, select, and motivate new talent
>     -- advances general membership "buy-in"
>     -- gives us a better ultimate product
>     --may lead us to new Eale team members!
> 
> I see no down-side to this.  If you do, please advise ASAP.  If you 
> think this is a good idea, please let me know also.  If you have any 
> ideas on how to make the peer review process better, I'd like to hear 
> that as well.
> 
> I'd like your responses by Friday 5 January.  If we decide to proceed, 
> I'd lke to include this in my next Journal article, which will be 
> written this weekend.
> 
> Finally, I hope to convene a peer review of the UHF receiver ATP soon.  
> For obvious reasons, I intend to use the same team which did the UHF 
> receiver design peer review, plus a couple of additions (w2gps and n4hy) 
> plus the at-large member, unless you convince me the latter is a bad idea.
> 
> Thank you all, and very 73,
> Jim
> wb4gcs at amsat.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle