[Mep-dev] OHL and informal requirements review
Bob McGwier
rwmcgwier@gmail.com
Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:54:24 -0500
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C95AD7.32E867D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
One minor correction and then a lot of background material. The HPSDR is
not a narrow band SDR project. HPSDR is myriad projects being brought to
the table and having "all the usual suspects" in amateur radio to contribute
what they can and as they want to. There is indeed narrow band SDR work
going on there. And the current sasquatch II discussion will lead to a very
low power "narrowband SDR" probably built around the QSD/QSE and theOMAP3530
in the Beagleboard. We were going to use the dsPIC33 but the Beagleboard
has a late version ARM in the OMAP3530 and it is a serious SoC. It has
OpenGL hardware and a monitor connection, usb 2.0 port, JTAG, etc. Frank
Brickle and I have agreed to port our SDR core to it (DttSP).
Beagleboard: http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=en
http://www.beagleboard.org
Both Mercury and Penelope can easily be the baseband processor for MEP with
10 MHz IQ bandwidth and use the USB 2.0 interface to do it. They Mercury
has an extremely high performance A/D running at 135 Mhz (or just under that
to provide nice divisors). Penelope has a good D/A and is the DUC .
Mercury is the FPGA based receiver and Penelope is the FPGA based exciter.
I have agreed that in addition to providing services through DttSP and
GnuRadio, that I will write a polyphase filterbank analyzer for the Mercury
FPGA and a polyphase filterbank synthesizer for the Penelope FPGA. During
my summer workshop in Princeton, fred harris (UCSD) and I developed new
filterbank technology and I am really motivated to try it out in all sorts
of apps. We will almost surely need to use PFB analyzer in the receiver for
the many narrow band channels if we are to proceed in MEP with anything that
remotely resembles the original ACP specification. If we are not, then we
might arrive at the conclusion we need different technology.
HPSDR: http://hpsdr.org is JOINTLY sponsored by TAPR and AMSAT. AMSAT has
provided all of the (expensive) design tools to HPSDR developers and AMSAT
is the "line of credit" holder for TAPR to get the boards together and out
the door.
TAPR is the builder of wired and tested projects once they are completed.
Now you know why I called it "all the usual suspects".
Mercury: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=MERCURY
Penelope: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=PENELOPE
Phoenix: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=PHOENIX
Atlas: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=ATLAS
Ozymandias: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=OZY
Janus: http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=Janus
Are currently released. There is a real drawback to how this has gone. It
is that TAPR makes fixed runs on these board AND ALL OF THE OTHERS BOARDS
NECESSARY TO MAKE THE RUN, which includes Ozy, Atlas, and if you want a
transceiver, you need at least the first five boards and this does not
include ANY front end filtering or user interface apparatus unless you add
the Janus. In addition to this, the developers of some of the hardware
have take the "OHL lite" as their license and restricted it to not
commercial use and not more than six boards. For public consumption the
statements have been made that this will be relaxed after "TAPR has recouped
its money". I am taking a wait and see approach.
I am a regular contributor to hpsdr and one of its founding members. I
talked AMSAT into the line of credit and "tool provider" role. That said,
the hardware above is all told, more expensive than the USRP2 and an RF
board. GnuRadio and Ettus Research are "further along and more mature" than
HPSDR is any many ways. It is not clear to me which is a better fit for
our work. In the mean time, I am hedging my bets. My signal processing
work is being put into all of these projects, open source GPLv3. We will
have the software tools to proceed. We do need example hardware to test.
My tests of the PFB and "ACP lite" will be done the USRP2 and a modified
RFIC based board I got from Matt that plugs in to the USRP2. It is cross
band and can be used to demonstrate the system approach should we wish this
to.
DttSP is moving towards integration with GnuRadio and is now officially in
CGRAN:
https://www.cgran.org
and DttSP is https://www.cgran.org/wiki/DttSP and as always GnuRadio is
http://gnuradio.org/trac
uwSDR is a serious potential contributor to our efforts either directly or
through adaptation. On this development team are some of the finest
oscillator, mixer and microwave RF folks around:
http://uwsdr.berlios.de
and they are also users of DttSP in the Jonathan Naylor console.
This is a lot to consume. If it seems like there is a lot here and that it
might take one years to get up to here, it did take me and my peers years
to get this here. That does not mean it should take years to come up to
speed to USE this stuff. Once MEP adopts a "build it and they will come"
type plan and makes specific decisions, we can do the software, including
IP support and run it in desktops while we do development.
Bob
N4HY
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.
"And yes I said, yes I will Yes", Molly Bloom
From: mep-dev-admin@uppermeadow.com [mailto:mep-dev-admin@uppermeadow.com]
On Behalf Of Michelle
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:42 AM
To: mep
Subject: [Mep-dev] OHL and informal requirements review
First, Thank you for being part of MEP! I'm highly optimistic about the
project and greatly enjoy working on it.
Second, there has been some interesting activity on the hpsdr list, and I
thought I'd highlight what I think might be pertinent to MEP. HPSDR (High
Performance Software Defined Radio) is a narrowband SDR project from Tuscon
Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR).
TAPR's Open Hardware License is what we've adopted as our hardware license
for MEP.
Find the full text on the TAPR OHL website ( <http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html>
http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html)
Following the discussions on the hpsdr list got me thinking about how teams
manage to get things done. While we'd like for it to be an exact science,
getting things done often has to resort to what might be described as an
ad-hoc process.
Any group that tries to do something has to be able to get from choices to
decisions to accomplishments. A choice is an intention to do something. A
decision is a choice with a plan and someone responsible for doing it. An
accomplishment is what's produced from completing the plan. Things that work
are what we want. Things that don't work will teach us what not to do.
The exploratory phase (what we're doing right now) is mainly about choices.
We are going to be moving towards decisions, which means making some sort of
commitment of time.
It goes without saying, which usually means that it should be said more
often:
Your time and talent are greatly valued. Any amount of time is appreciated,
and I will do all that I can to make sure that it counts.
What are the requirements we've come up with so far? This is an informal
check-up of our discussions so far. I'd like to update the requirements list
and project description for the project overview at
http://www.delmarnorth.com/microwave/overview/MicrowaveEngineeringProjectOve
rview.pdf
MEP:
Transmits duplex data
Supports a 10MHz bandwidth
Operates as a fully functional IP network
Operates as a fully functional Ethernet node
Provides point-to-(multipoint) and multiple access communications
Uses existing protocols and hardware whenever possible
Complies with a fully specified air interface
Supports discovery functions
Is capable of satellite simulation
Can operate as a satellite ground station
Supports experimentation
Is portable
Are these requirements valid?
What major requirements are we missing?
The goal of exploration is to produce a set of requirements that we believe
to the best of our knowledge cover the project. We then analyze those
requirements with more emphasis on what particular resources are needed to
fulfill the requirements and start to commit to particular paths. If we find
we've been incomplete about defining the requirements, then we cycle back
through by adding the requirement, analyzing it with particular respect to
what other requirements are affected, and then proceeding to design.
More soon,
-Michelle
------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C95AD7.32E867D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>One minor correction and then a lot of background =
material.
The HPSDR is not a narrow band SDR project. HPSDR is myriad =
projects
being brought to the table and having “all the usual =
suspects” in
amateur radio to contribute what they can and as they want to. =
There is
indeed narrow band SDR work going on there. And the current =
sasquatch II discussion
will lead to a very low power “narrowband SDR” probably =
built
around the QSD/QSE and theOMAP3530 in the Beagleboard. We were =
going to
use the dsPIC33 but the Beagleboard has a late version ARM in the =
OMAP3530 and
it is a serious SoC. It has OpenGL hardware and a monitor =
connection, usb
2.0 port, JTAG, etc. Frank Brickle and I have agreed to port our =
SDR core
to it (DttSP).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Beagleboard: </span><a
href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=3Den">http://groups=
.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=3Den</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><a =
href=3D"http://www.beagleboard.org">http://www.beagleboard.org</a><o:p></=
o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Both Mercury and Penelope can easily be the baseband =
processor
for MEP with 10 MHz IQ bandwidth and use the USB 2.0 interface to do =
it.
They Mercury has an extremely high performance A/D running at 135 Mhz =
(or just
under that to provide nice divisors). Penelope has a good D/A and =
is the
DUC . Mercury is the FPGA based receiver and Penelope is the FPGA =
based
exciter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I have agreed that in addition to providing services =
through
DttSP and GnuRadio, that I will write a polyphase filterbank analyzer =
for the Mercury
FPGA and a polyphase filterbank synthesizer for the Penelope =
FPGA.
During my summer workshop in Princeton, fred harris (UCSD) and I
developed new filterbank technology and I am really motivated to try it =
out in
all sorts of apps. We will almost surely need to use PFB analyzer =
in the
receiver for the many narrow band channels if we are to proceed in MEP =
with
anything that remotely resembles the original ACP specification. =
If we
are not, then we might arrive at the conclusion we need different =
technology.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>HPSDR: <a href=3D"http://hpsdr.org">http://hpsdr.org</a> =
is
JOINTLY sponsored by TAPR and AMSAT. AMSAT has provided all of the
(expensive) design tools to HPSDR developers and AMSAT is the =
“line of
credit” holder for TAPR to get the boards together and out the =
door.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>TAPR is the builder of wired and tested projects once =
they are
completed. Now you know why I called it “all the usual =
suspects”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mercury: </span> <a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DMERCURY">http://hpsdr.org=
/wiki/index.php?title=3DMERCURY</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Penelope: <a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DPENELOPE">http://hpsdr.or=
g/wiki/index.php?title=3DPENELOPE</a><span
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>Phoenix: =
</span><a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DPHOENIX">http://hpsdr.org=
/wiki/index.php?title=3DPHOENIX</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Atlas: <a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DATLAS">http://hpsdr.org/w=
iki/index.php?title=3DATLAS</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Ozymandias: <a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DOZY">http://hpsdr.org/wik=
i/index.php?title=3DOZY</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Janus: <a
href=3D"http://hpsdr.org/wiki/index.php?title=3DJanus">http://hpsdr.org/w=
iki/index.php?title=3DJanus</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Are currently released. There is a real drawback to =
how this
has gone. It is that TAPR makes fixed runs on these board AND ALL =
OF THE
OTHERS BOARDS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE RUN, which includes Ozy, Atlas, and =
if you
want a transceiver, you need at least the first five boards and this =
does not
include ANY front end filtering or user interface apparatus unless you =
add the
Janus. In addition to this, the developers of some of =
the
hardware have take the “OHL lite” as their license and =
restricted
it to not commercial use and not more than six boards. For public
consumption the statements have been made that this will be relaxed =
after “TAPR
has recouped its money”. I am taking a wait and see =
approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>I am a regular contributor to hpsdr and one of its =
founding
members. I talked AMSAT into the line of credit and “tool =
provider”
role. That said, the hardware above is all told, more =
expensive
than the USRP2 and an RF board. GnuRadio and Ettus Research are =
“further
along and more mature” than HPSDR is any many ways. It =
is not
clear to me which is a better fit for our work. In the mean =
time, I
am hedging my bets. My signal processing work is being put into =
all of
these projects, open source GPLv3. We will have the software tools =
to
proceed. We do need example hardware to test. My tests of =
the PFB
and “ACP lite” will be done the USRP2 and a modified RFIC =
based
board I got from Matt that plugs in to the USRP2. It is cross band =
and
can be used to demonstrate the system approach should we wish this =
to.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>DttSP is moving towards integration with GnuRadio and is =
now
officially in CGRAN:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a =
href=3D"https://www.cgran.org">https://www.cgran.org</a><o:p></o:p></span=
></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>and DttSP is <a =
href=3D"https://www.cgran.org/wiki/DttSP">https://www.cgran.org/wiki/DttS=
P</a>
and as always GnuRadio is <a =
href=3D"http://gnuradio.org/trac">http://gnuradio.org/trac</a><o:p></o:p>=
</span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>uwSDR is a serious potential contributor to our efforts =
either
directly or through adaptation. On this development team are some =
of the
finest oscillator, mixer and microwave RF folks =
around:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a =
href=3D"http://uwsdr.berlios.de">http://uwsdr.berlios.de</a><o:p></o:p></=
span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>and they are also users of DttSP in the Jonathan Naylor =
console.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This is a lot to consume. If it seems like there is =
a lot
here and that it might take one years to get up to here, it did =
take me
and my peers years to get this here. That does not mean it =
should
take years to come up to speed to USE this stuff. Once MEP =
adopts a
“build it and they will come” type plan and makes specific
decisions, we can do the software, including IP support and run it =
in
desktops while we do development.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Bob<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>N4HY<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>ARRL SDR Working Group Chair<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, =
Packrats,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>"And yes I said, yes I will Yes", Molly =
Bloom<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
mep-dev-admin@uppermeadow.com [mailto:mep-dev-admin@uppermeadow.com] =
<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Michelle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> mep<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Mep-dev] OHL and informal requirements =
review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>First, Thank you for being part of MEP! I'm highly
optimistic about the project and greatly enjoy working on =
it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Second, there has been some interesting activity on =
the
hpsdr list, and I thought I'd highlight what I think might =
be pertinent to
MEP. HPSDR (High Performance Software Defined Radio) is a =
narrowband SDR
project from Tuscon Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR). =
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>TAPR's Open Hardware License is what we've =
adopted as
our hardware license for MEP.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Find the full text on the TAPR OHL website (<a
href=3D"http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html"><span =
style=3D'color:#810081'>http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html</span></a>)<o:p></o:=
p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Following the discussions on the hpsdr list got me =
thinking
about how teams manage to get things done. While we'd like for it to be =
an
exact science, getting things done often has to resort to what =
might be
described as an ad-hoc process. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Any group that tries to do something has to be able =
to get
from choices to decisions to accomplishments. A choice is an intention =
to do
something. A decision is a choice with a plan and someone =
responsible for
doing it. An accomplishment is what's produced from completing the plan. =
Things
that work are what we want. Things that don't work will teach us what =
not to
do. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>The exploratory phase (what we're doing right =
now) is
mainly about choices. We are going to be moving towards decisions,
which means making some sort of commitment of time. =
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>It goes without saying, which usually means that it =
should
be said more often: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Your time and talent are greatly valued. Any amount =
of time
is appreciated, and I will do all that I can to make sure that it =
counts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>What are the requirements we've come up with so =
far? This is
an informal check-up of our discussions so far. I'd like to update the
requirements list and project description for the project overview at <a
href=3D"http://www.delmarnorth.com/microwave/overview/MicrowaveEngineerin=
gProjectOverview.pdf">http://www.delmarnorth.com/microwave/overview/Micro=
waveEngineeringProjectOverview.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MEP:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Transmits duplex data<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Supports a 10MHz bandwidth<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Operates as a fully functional IP =
network<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Operates as a fully functional Ethernet =
node<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Provides point-to-(multipoint) and multiple access
communications<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Uses existing protocols and hardware whenever =
possible<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Complies with a fully specified air =
interface<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Supports discovery functions<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Is capable of satellite =
simulation<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Can operate as a satellite ground =
station<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Supports experimentation<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Is portable<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Are these requirements valid?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>What major requirements are =
we missing?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>The goal of exploration is to produce a =
set of
requirements that we believe to the best of our knowledge cover the
project. We then analyze those requirements with more emphasis on what
particular resources are needed to fulfill the requirements and start to =
commit
to particular paths. If we find we've been incomplete about defining the
requirements, then we cycle back through by adding the requirement,
analyzing it with particular respect to what other requirements are
affected, and then proceeding to design. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>More soon,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>-Michelle<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C95AD7.32E867D0--