[eagle] Re: A wild thought
wb4gcs at amsat.org
Wed Jan 3 19:18:06 PST 2007
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
Good question, I had it clear in my mind, but didn't explain very well.
Thanks & 73,
wb4gcs at amsat.org
Alan Bloom wrote:
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Eagle