[eagle] Re: Status update and request for action
rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Tue May 29 07:46:42 PDT 2007
And you would be absolutely right. Since John developed the original
requirements document in concert with engineering management to meet the
requirements we wanted (PAVE PAWS immunization, support SDX, etc.)
aren't we glad that we have followed this procedure? We will again.
Let me know if you receive two copies of this email. If you did, you
are a member of the group. A CAVEAT: YOU MUST POST FROM THE ACCOUNT ON
WHICH YOU RECEIVE THIS EMAIL. It has to have some identifier to go by.
Juan Rivera wrote:
> Its no reflection on you but I still feel that it is fundamentallky
wrong for the designers and builders to create the requirements
document. It's an issue of customer vs. supplier. The requirements
should be supplied by the customer (AMSAT management). Then the folks
that are tasked with designing and building the device should generate a
plan to meet the requirements.
> I'd post this on the AMSAT/Eagle newsgroup if I was on that list but
> 73, Juan
> On 5/26/07, *John B. Stephensen* <kd6ozh at comcast.net
<mailto:kd6ozh at comcast.net>> wrote:
> I think that the next step in the development of the 70 cm receiver
> needs to
> be updating the requirements document and getting it approved by
> those who
> will interface to the receiver. It was written over a year ago and
> have changed. In my mind, there are several issues that need to be
> 1) Storing the frequency setting.
> 2) Phase noise.
> 3) Frequency reference failure detection and switchover.
> 4) Thermal environment.
> 5) Waiving the hardware telecommand decoding requirement.
> I'm in the process of updating the document and should done done in
> the next
> few days.
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson
More information about the Eagle