I agree.� And the issue you raise is a BIG one.� I have seen good design�
qualified people involved in one evolustion at the same time.
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�
I'm considering seeking, for each discrete peer review, an additional�
review team member from AMSAT membership at large.