@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
-**[\[ACTION ITEM\]](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.
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..."
h. revisit next call how to ask for wide participation form IEEE members into our committee. It depends on update to "Call for Participation" text and help from Marketing.
=> Specify that we are designing services, not calling for reviewers yet
...
...
@@ -49,9 +48,9 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
> Written with [StackEdit](https://stackedit.io/).
