Team:
Since many of you will be still at SFO or travelling back, I don't think
there's a point in having a conference.
HOWEVER, tomorrow represents a GREAT opportunity to brief those who
weren't there on Symposium.
SO, I will be there. I ask all of you who were at Symposium to attend.
There will only be one agenda item -- to brief those who weren't there
on Symposium. And the discussions can range from there . . . .
NEW SUBJECT:
I've read the feedback on my "classes of service" note. Several people
told me to just do it, I'm glad I didn't. Here's where I am.
1. I feel VERY strongly that we need a concise class of service
designation. I don't much care what the designations are.
2. It was very clear to me, particularly in watching Matt's
presentation at Symposium, the value of having such designations.
Things like "mode U/V" have precise meanings to our designers, members,
and users. We need similar precision in defining our classes of
service. "Analog" is very confusing when we're talking about an SSB
transponder that is more digital than analog.
3. Some are offended by calling the traditional or old analog
transponders "class 0". I think that's crap, but remember that
perceptions are reality.
4. I'm going to make and publish a decision in the next few days. I'm
going to tell the members and readers of the web site and -bb what those
are, so we can all speak from a common understanding of terminology.
5. The proposal I sent was the best I could come up with to get the
discussion started.
6. I've seen some good suggestions.
I'll digest the suggestions tomorrow night, send a proposal before the
teamspeak conference, and we can go from there.
Thanks & 73,
Jim
wb4gcs(a)amsat.org
