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 differ.

Good question, I had it clear in my mind, but didn't explain very well.

Thanks & 73,
[email protected]

Alan Bloom wrote:
Excellent idea.

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,
[email protected]

Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
[email protected]