Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/2KHLIJJLAO3A5XGDTJEH7J5FFJCLRYQD/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "2KHLIJJLAO3A5XGDTJEH7J5FFJCLRYQD",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/WX35DGVLKZAELRHCD6MORVGXK5LAOWFM/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "wb4gcs (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/87014499e012476c8198fad186f7f963/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jim Sanford",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: A wild thought",
    "date": "2007-01-04T03:18:06Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/NXXPXIZSMFLQ2MIZ6WICQ2T2WTDLPYNC/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "One at-large member for each review.  My intent would be a new member \nfor each review, unless there's a good reason for repeat.  As we get \ninto different disciplines of review, the required qualifications will \ndiffer.\n\nGood question, I had it clear in my mind, but didn't explain very well.\n\nThanks & 73,\nJim\[email protected]\n\n\nAlan Bloom wrote:\n\n>Excellent idea.\n>\n>Is this one at-large member who does ALL peer reviews for Eagle, or is\n>there one at-large member for EACH peer review?  I think it might get\n>burdensome for one person to have to all of them.\n>\n>Alan\n>\n>\n>\n>On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 16:58, Jim Sanford wrote:\n>  \n>\n>>Team:\n>>I've been thinking about this for a while.  Recent publicity for Eagle \n>>in multiple publications has resurrected the thought, so I seek your \n>>comments.\n>>\n>>I'm considering seeking, for each discrete peer review, an additional \n>>review team member from AMSAT membership at large.\n>>\n>>Heretofore we've collected peer review teams from a subset of Eagle team \n>>members with possibly a few known additions.  I'm considering seeking a \n>>single at-large reivewer from within AMSAT MEMBERSHIP.  In my vision, \n>>I'd go out to amsat-bb and ANS and solicit qualified volunteers.  Such \n>>volunteers would have to be verifiable members of AMSAT-NA or another \n>>AMSAT organization, and would be asked to send me a resume or c.v.  I \n>>would use these to select the MOST qualified volunteer for a single \n>>at-large position on the peer review team.  (I say that I would make the \n>>selection, mostly to keep the additional admin burden off you; if any of \n>>you want to help me choose, thanks!)  I would be responsible for \n>>forwarding that individual all necessary materials to do the peer \n>>review.  I would be responsible for coordinating with Bob and Eric that \n>>that at-large member would have access to the AMSAT Engineering channel \n>>on TeamSpeak for that particularl peer review (the password changes for \n>>each discrete topic.)\n>>\n>>The advantages I see in this:\n>>    -- furthers our \"openness\" with deeds not words\n>>    -- gives motivated new talent an opportunity to share their \n>>expertise with us\n>>    -- gives us a chance to evaluate, select, and motivate new talent\n>>    -- advances general membership \"buy-in\"\n>>    -- gives us a better ultimate product\n>>    --may lead us to new Eale team members!\n>>\n>>I see no down-side to this.  If you do, please advise ASAP.  If you \n>>think this is a good idea, please let me know also.  If you have any \n>>ideas on how to make the peer review process better, I'd like to hear \n>>that as well.\n>>\n>>I'd like your responses by Friday 5 January.  If we decide to proceed, \n>>I'd lke to include this in my next Journal article, which will be \n>>written this weekend.\n>>\n>>Finally, I hope to convene a peer review of the UHF receiver ATP soon.  \n>>For obvious reasons, I intend to use the same team which did the UHF \n>>receiver design peer review, plus a couple of additions (w2gps and n4hy) \n>>plus the at-large member, unless you convince me the latter is a bad idea.\n>>\n>>Thank you all, and very 73,\n>>Jim\n>>[email protected]\n>>\n>>_______________________________________________\n>>Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n>>[email protected]\n>>http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>>    \n>>\n>\n>\n>  \n>\n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/2KHLIJJLAO3A5XGDTJEH7J5FFJCLRYQD/",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "us-ascii",
            "size": 3974,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2KHLIJJLAO3A5XGDTJEH7J5FFJCLRYQD/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}