Bob:

I agree.  And the issue you raise is a BIG one.  I have seen good design 

reviews turn into a complete waste due simply to having too many 

qualified people involved in one evolustion at the same time.

thanks & 73,

J

im

Robert McGwier wrote:

I completely believe in openness.  There has been some grumbling about 

the small peer review groups but this has more to do with unwieldy 

meetings on these low bandwidth VoIP tools we are using than it does 

with secrecy.  I support this completely.  I also suggest that we have 

an official scribe at each peer review to take down detailed notes of 

our peer review sessions to post on  EaglePedia.  Again,  the size is 

about efficiency, not closedness.  We would welcome comments from all.

Bob

Jim Sanford wrote:

Team:

I've been thinking about this for a while.  Recent publicity for 

Eagle in multiple publications has resurrected the thought, so I seek 

your comments.

I'm considering seeking, for each discrete peer review, an additional 

review team member from AMSAT membership at large.

_______________________________________________

Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA

Eagle@amsat.org

http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle