@@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ Emails were sent to a few [IEEE Societies and Technical Councils](https://docs.g
#### 3. General discussion:
Finally, the following topics were discussed:
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](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/21)** there is a need to define the value proposition that peer-review adds to open source designs. One was to look at is is:
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](https://opensource.ieee.org/community/peer-review/admin/-/issues/21)** there is a need to define the value proposition that peer-review adds to open source designs. One way to illustrate the value proposition is described in this way:
* : same design but one with peer-review should have more intrinsic value
f. add the definition what an "official IEEE open source project is" and how this pee-review provides value to that specific type of project
g. add to first sentence "IEEEE has made available a platfor for oepn source that is blah, blah, blah..."
...
...
@@ -48,9 +49,9 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
> Written with [StackEdit](https://stackedit.io/).
