@@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ 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.
- @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
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.
- @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]** 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
=> set expectations clearly
g. remove "design from 5th bullet insight...
...
...
@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ Finally, the following topics were discussed:
> Written with [StackEdit](https://stackedit.io/).
