[hpsdr] HPSDR Projects

[Philip Covington]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Dan Babcock <n4xwe at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> From my observations the idea that the LPU was somehow concocted in a back
> alley without notice isn't quite correct.  Toward the end of October, Scotty
> announced the LPU project on the hpsdr list and invited feed back.  There
> were exactly two postings on the list in reply to his original
> announcement.  I don't know for sure but he may have received additional
> comments in private emails.  Whatever, it seems like the problem is apathy
> and not exclusion.

No, it was the order that the project was accepted that is in
question.  The LPU showed up on the HPSDR website first and was then
discussed on the HPSDR list.  This implies that it was accepted as a
HPSDR project before it was put to the list for comment.  A big part
of HPSDR is peer review.

> In my mind the involvement of TAPR in the HPSDR project has been a godsend.
> The upfront cost for doing a project like Penelope or Mercury is about a
> hundred thousand dollars.  Even though the purchasers defray that initial
> cash outlay, the risk to TAPR as the guarantor is not insignificant.  It is
> clearly the prerogative of the TAPR Board of Directors to support or not
> support any project they choose.

TAPR would have nothing to manufacture either if it we not for the
developers volunteering their valuable time and expertise to the
projects, so it is a win-win both ways.  Not to speak of the huge cost
of the development tools that AMSAT has arranged to have available to
developers.

In Steve N7HPR's "TAPR Letter to the HPSDR Community" posted in March
2007 a few things were clarified (prompted by the Mercury_EU
misunderstandings):

"TAPR is happy to consider project proposals for funding and
manufacture, provided the project has been thoroughly peer reviewed by
the HPSDR community and a written proposal is submitted to the TAPR
Board of Directors."

"TAPR simply cannot take on all projects.  Therefore, the designs that
are more thought out, prototyped, vetted and peer reviewed will stand
the best chance of funding and manufacture by TAPR."

Both points stress "peer review" which is hard to have unless the
project proposals are submitted to the HPSDR list. IMO TeamSpeak is
not the proper place to do it.

> The Saturday 0200Z meetings of FlexRadio Friends on TeamSpeak aren't
> private, they are open to anyone that has a PC, an internet connection and,
> if you want to comment, a microphone.  Granted it isn't held at a convenient
> time for most Europeans but that is due to the fact that we live on a sphere
> that is divided into 24 time zones.  If you can't make it to a session, the
> recordings are posted through the good graces of Mike, AA8K, at hamsdr.org.

It makes more sense to publish project proposals on the HPSDR list
where everyone can review them.   Heck, the TeamSpeak meetings are not
even called HPSDR meetings, instead it's called FlexRadio Friends
though not much Flex Radio equipment is discussed there anymore!

> It may be just my narrow view of the World but am having a little trouble
> understanding what all the fuss is about.

Peer review,  HPSDR community involvement, etc...

> Dan N4XWE

Phil N8VB

 1228768922.0