-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/21)** all committee members are asked to help clarify "the context of open source design" at IEEE: what exactly is that context? Linked to publication? Hosting of Open Research? Standards related? Project hosting?
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/22)** there is a need to define the value proposition that peer-review adds to open source designs. One way to describe the value proposition was shared on a [LinkedIn article](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/peer-review-open-source-alfredo-herrera-p-eng-msc-ieee-sm/) and is added here to spark our discussion:
> if two projects start from the same source files, by submitting one of them to planned review(s) by a group of subject-matter-experts (i.e. peers): it is reasonable to expect that through this process the design would gain a higher level of quality than the project that did not use peer-review.
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](url)** TB:
- @zack suggested to clarify the "call for participation" template by adding to the first sentence a description of the new IEEE platform. This has been added to [Issue 20](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/20)
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/23)** we discussed the idea of asking IEEE-SA marketing to help us send a "Call for participation" email to all of IEEE; but it was decided to discuss this on our next call
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/24)** it was suggested to remove "design" from first bullet in the **"Request for participation"** section of the "Call for participation" template. Issue was created to allow for discussion prior to change.
...
...
@@ -34,5 +32,5 @@ These meeting minutes mark the beginning of use of the Issues functionality in t
> Written with [StackEdit](https://stackedit.io/).
