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.