@@ -37,9 +37,7 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
> 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.
- @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. It depends on update to "Call for Participation" text and help from Marketing.
=> Specify that we are designing services, not calling for reviewers yet
=> set expectations clearly
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](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
g. remove "design from 5th bullet insight...
...
...
@@ -48,10 +46,10 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
> Written with [StackEdit](https://stackedit.io/).
