Posting

Okay, I read it though I did fast forward through some of it like the
funding paper.
I noticed a "two" that should have been a "too" in the first or second one.
You have a tendency to restate your opening paragraph several times. By
the time I am though the second or third restatement I am wondering
where the meat is.
While only the last paper had actually references to the SSI list, I
noticed several areas that have been topics of discussion on the list.
This is a derivative work rather than a primary research paper. All of
the concepts were pulled from some form of source material and as such
represents a history of other peoples research and opinions. Where I
really didn't like this was in the discussion of FasterCheaperBetter
which was solely focused on doing NASA work the NASA way using NASA
because that is the way the source papers were written. There was no
out-of-the box thinking and therefore I felt that the conclusions and
suggestions were invalid. It bothered me that somebody reading this
paper would think that this was all that there was on the subject rather
than understand that it was only a very limited set of fix NASA solutions.