Rad TF Maintenance 2011-12: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Kevino (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Kevino (talk | contribs)
Line 29: Line 29:


==7. Risks==
==7. Risks==
Any technical or political risks related to expected maintenance items?
* Risk of effort spent on updating existing Supplements and TF to match new templates being low return-on-investment.
 


==9. Tech Cmte Evaluation==
==9. Tech Cmte Evaluation==

Revision as of 11:46, 19 October 2011

Target: Prepare CP's for Ballot for ?May? 2012

Number of outstanding CPs:

  • 20 Assigned CPs to work on
  • For specifics refer to Tracking Doc and sort by Status
  • (about 1/2 are stagnant) Should do a review/triage of dormant CPs and cancel or re-start
  • 0 Completed CPs that failed ballot and need to be reworked)
  • 2 Submitted CPs to review/assign
  • Update PERF to allow multiple objects per scan
  • Some extended debate possible on this one.
  • Add Issuer of IDs to MWL


List of "non-trivial" CPs:

  • CP-xxx : Title (Author)
    • no "non-trivial" CPs expected


List of outstanding items not yet submitted as CPs:

  • 1 or 2 minor CPs pending.

List of other maintenance tasks:

  • Cleanup of Cross-Referencing to ITI (they renumbered their sections)
  • Adoption of new IHE Templates <add link>
  • Add 2 FT Supplements to TF (and any made FT next year)
  • R2/RE Harmonization?

7. Risks

  • Risk of effort spent on updating existing Supplements and TF to match new templates being low return-on-investment.

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

  • 10% total for maintenance with new templates only for new supplements
  • 20% if we add adapting current trial implementation supplements to new templates

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

Kevin O'Donnell