Is this one at-large member who does ALL peer reviews for Eagle, or is there one at-large member for EACH peer review? I think it might get burdensome for one person to have to all of them.
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 16:58, 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.
Heretofore we've collected peer review teams from a subset of Eagle team members with possibly a few known additions. I'm considering seeking a single at-large reivewer from within AMSAT MEMBERSHIP. In my vision, I'd go out to amsat-bb and ANS and solicit qualified volunteers. Such volunteers would have to be verifiable members of AMSAT-NA or another AMSAT organization, and would be asked to send me a resume or c.v. I would use these to select the MOST qualified volunteer for a single at-large position on the peer review team. (I say that I would make the selection, mostly to keep the additional admin burden off you; if any of you want to help me choose, thanks!) I would be responsible for forwarding that individual all necessary materials to do the peer review. I would be responsible for coordinating with Bob and Eric that that at-large member would have access to the AMSAT Engineering channel on TeamSpeak for that particularl peer review (the password changes for each discrete topic.)
The advantages I see in this: -- furthers our "openness" with deeds not words -- gives motivated new talent an opportunity to share their expertise with us -- gives us a chance to evaluate, select, and motivate new talent -- advances general membership "buy-in" -- gives us a better ultimate product --may lead us to new Eale team members!
I see no down-side to this. If you do, please advise ASAP. If you think this is a good idea, please let me know also. If you have any ideas on how to make the peer review process better, I'd like to hear that as well.
I'd like your responses by Friday 5 January. If we decide to proceed, I'd lke to include this in my next Journal article, which will be written this weekend.
Finally, I hope to convene a peer review of the UHF receiver ATP soon. For obvious reasons, I intend to use the same team which did the UHF receiver design peer review, plus a couple of additions (w2gps and n4hy) plus the at-large member, unless you convince me the latter is a bad idea.
Thank you all, and very 73, Jim [email protected]