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/Q77H53KXZNGOK5AS7WFRNSBQNLNJXB2M/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "Q77H53KXZNGOK5AS7WFRNSBQNLNJXB2M",
    "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": "2007-01-04T03:19:53Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/LTWGNYCDSBJW2XMOGGMDADETGCVLA5TV/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Lou:\nGood comment, but:  My thinking is that the design materials should be \nsufficiently self-explanatory to the qualified team member that this \nwon't be a problem.  If it is, either the documents aren't good enough, \nor the individual isn't qualified.  I expect very little additional \neffort.  If events prove me wrong, we'll review the bidding.\n\nThanks & 73,\njim\[email protected]\n\n\nLouis McFadin wrote:\n\n> The concern that I have is that we end up spending an inordinate \n> amount of time and resources bring people up to speed. As you know \n> that can completely disrupt the process.\n> If you want to bring in additional people I suggest you bring them in \n> sooner rather than later.\n>\n> Lou McFadin\n>\n> W5DID\n>\n> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>\n>\n>\n> On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Jim Sanford wrote:\n>\n>> Bob:\n>> I agree.  And the issue you raise is a BIG one.  I have seen good design \n>> reviews turn into a complete waste due simply to having too many \n>> qualified people involved in one evolustion at the same time.\n>> thanks & 73,\n>> J\n>> im\n>>\n>>\n>> Robert McGwier wrote:\n>>\n>>> I completely believe in openness.  There has been some grumbling about \n>>> the small peer review groups but this has more to do with unwieldy \n>>> meetings on these low bandwidth VoIP tools we are using than it does \n>>> with secrecy.  I support this completely.  I also suggest that we have \n>>> an official scribe at each peer review to take down detailed notes of \n>>> our peer review sessions to post on  EaglePedia.  Again,  the size is \n>>> about efficiency, not closedness.  We would welcome comments from all.\n>>>\n>>> Bob\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Jim Sanford wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> Team:\n>>>> I've been thinking about this for a while.  Recent publicity for \n>>>> Eagle in multiple publications has resurrected the thought, so I seek \n>>>> your 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>>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>\n>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}