Team: Since many of you will be still at SFO or travelling back, I don't think there's a point in having a conference.

HOWEVER, tomorrow represents a GREAT opportunity to brief those who weren't there on Symposium.

SO, I will be there. I ask all of you who were at Symposium to attend. There will only be one agenda item -- to brief those who weren't there on Symposium. And the discussions can range from there . . . .

NEW SUBJECT:

I've read the feedback on my "classes of service" note. Several people told me to just do it, I'm glad I didn't. Here's where I am.

1. I feel VERY strongly that we need a concise class of service designation. I don't much care what the designations are. 2. It was very clear to me, particularly in watching Matt's presentation at Symposium, the value of having such designations. Things like "mode U/V" have precise meanings to our designers, members, and users. We need similar precision in defining our classes of service. "Analog" is very confusing when we're talking about an SSB transponder that is more digital than analog. 3. Some are offended by calling the traditional or old analog transponders "class 0". I think that's crap, but remember that perceptions are reality. 4. I'm going to make and publish a decision in the next few days. I'm going to tell the members and readers of the web site and -bb what those are, so we can all speak from a common understanding of terminology. 5. The proposal I sent was the best I could come up with to get the discussion started. 6. I've seen some good suggestions.

I'll digest the suggestions tomorrow night, send a proposal before the teamspeak conference, and we can go from there.

Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org