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

[email protected]

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