[eagle] Re: A wild thought
n1al at cds1.net
Mon Jan 1 21:50:05 PST 2007
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.
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 16:58, Jim Sanford wrote:
> I've been thinking about this for a while. Recent publicity for Eagle
> in multiple publications has resurrected the thought, so I seek your
> 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,
> wb4gcs at amsat.org
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
More information about the Eagle