The concern that I have is that we end up spending an inordinate amount of time and resources bring people up to speed. As you know that can completely disrupt the process.
If you want to bring in additional people I suggest you bring them in sooner rather than later.

Lou McFadin


[email protected]

On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Jim Sanford wrote:

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,

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.


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 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
[email protected]