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]
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.
Go for it, Jim!
73 and HNY,
Lyle KK7P
Excellent idea.
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.
Alan
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]
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Jim,
I think your idea has very positive merit but consider this as a follow up to Alan's comments.
More than likely each key project to be peer reviewed will likely require a different set of technical skills. For example, the IHU will have a different set of technical skill requirements than the C band downlink transmitter. So consider this.
When you solicit volunteers from the membership include a call for "all" disciplines.
Then select from this pool a new "at large peer review member" whose technical skills best fit the project being reviewed and so one for each project being reviewed. This way you get the best technical fit possible and you involve as many members as you have peer reviews.
Downside - Jim, you take on another administrative task as project manager but if your willing I think the idea will draw from the technical wealth our membership has to offer and in the process you're likely to identify folks you'd like to have join the Eagle design team.
Sounds like your getting your creative thought juices flowing as we start a new year. Way to go!
Regards and Happy New Year (to all Eagle team members), Bill - N6GHz
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.
Hi Jim,
I don't see any down side to this. And you have listed the up side(s). I think you should do it (always easy to say someone else should do something - sorry).
Chuck
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]
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
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.
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.
Lou McFadin W5DID [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.
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
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:35 -0500, 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,
Maybe it depends on how "sexy" or interesting the item under evaluation is? As an example from the other end of the continuum, I know that all the CAN-Do stuff has been out where anyone can look at it for many months now, and has been referenced on amsat-bb, and to the best of my knowledge the number of people who have provided feedback to Stephen on the firmware can be counted on the fingers of one hand...
Bdale
Bdale Garbee wrote:
Maybe it depends on how "sexy" or interesting the item under evaluation is? As an example from the other end of the continuum, I know that all the CAN-Do stuff has been out where anyone can look at it for many months now, and has been referenced on amsat-bb, and to the best of my knowledge the number of people who have provided feedback to Stephen on the firmware can be counted on the fingers of one hand...
Agreed. In working out the low-bitrate Eagle channels, one of the the things we're aiming for is to exploit as much Open Source technology as possible. That was part of the point of my paper and presentation on this topic at the last Symposium.
In that sense, a lot of the design and technology has been subject to review and critique for years. I don't think anybody is interested in duplicating all that work, and it's hard to see what would be gained by it.
73 Frank AB2KT
One at-large member for each review. My intent would be a new member for each review, unless there's a good reason for repeat. As we get into different disciplines of review, the required qualifications will differ.
Good question, I had it clear in my mind, but didn't explain very well.
Thanks & 73, Jim [email protected]
Alan Bloom wrote:
Excellent idea.
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.
Alan
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]
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
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.
Lou McFadin
W5DID
[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.
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] mailto:[email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
-
Alan Bloom -
Bdale Garbee -
Bill Ress -
Chuck Green -
Frank Brickle -
Jim Sanford -
Louis McFadin -
Lyle Johnson -
Robert McGwier