Lou: Good comment, but: My thinking is that the design materials should be sufficiently self-explanatory to the qualified team member that this won't be a problem. If it is, either the documents aren't good enough, or the individual isn't qualified. I expect very little additional effort. If events prove me wrong, we'll review the bidding.
Thanks & 73, jim [email protected]
Louis McFadin wrote:
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.
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]
On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Jim Sanford wrote:
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.
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] mailto:[email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle