>
>Gilmer, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Eimac does not seem all that serious about finishing this effort as it has
>>been in the same state
>>> for a little over 18months.
>>>
>>> George,
>>> K0IW
>>
>>I was afraid of that (sections 3+ are non-existent).
>>Another typical web resource (out of date!).
>>Maybe they lost their "Care and Feeding" advocate and now no one wants to be
>>bothered teaching anyone.
>>
>
>They certainly lost many potential volunteers, because:
>
>1. The project seems to be restricted to updating within the existing
>chapter structure. After more than 30 years of change since the first
>edition, there's no way that original structure can still be adequate.
>
>2. Eimac's "legal" terms are exploitative. Volunteer authors would sign
>away all their rights, in return for some completely unspecified token
>of thanks.
? 'Tis a bit curious, Ian.
>
>For a company of that stature, Eimac's whole approach to the project has
>been... well, amateurish.
? Indeed
>It's not surprising that people have voted
>with their feet, and steered well clear.
>
? Would you be surprised to learn that the person assigned to the
rewrite is from the Marketing Department instead of the Engineering
Department?
- cheers
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|