[eagle] Re: A wild thought

[Jim Sanford]

One at-large member for each review.  My intent would be a new member 
for each review, unless there's a good reason for repeat.  As we get 
into different disciplines of review, the required qualifications will 
differ.

Good question, I had it clear in my mind, but didn't explain very well.

Thanks & 73,
Jim
wb4gcs at amsat.org


Alan Bloom wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20070103/d49c8cc0/attachment.html