Difference between revisions of "Final Text Process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
** (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?) | ** (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?) | ||
** Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | ** Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | ||
+ | ** Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]] | ||
* Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion) | * Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion) | ||
* Record checklist findings and conclusions of the debate in your meeting minutes | * Record checklist findings and conclusions of the debate in your meeting minutes |
Revision as of 20:54, 13 January 2011
Taking a supplement from Trial Implementation to Final Text should go through 4 stages: Proposal, Consensus, Incorporation and Publication.
Proposal
The Technical Committee, after a minimum of one annual cycle of Connectathon testing, decides that a Trial Implementation supplement is ready for consideration as a Final Text candidate.
- Announce intention to review for Final Text
- Consider doing this around the time of Public Comment for other Profiles
- Run down the following checklist for each profile
- Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion)
- Record checklist findings and debate conclusion
Consensus
The Planning Committee votes on the Tech Cmte proposal to Final Text the supplement.
- Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
- Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
- It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting
- Run down the following checklist for each proposed supplement
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Debate checklist exceptions (failure of any of the above is cause for discussion)
- Record checklist findings and conclusions of the debate in your meeting minutes
- Hold and record formal vote
- Communicate results to TC
Incorporation
The Technical Committee completes the Final Text and/or folds it into the Tech Framework:
- Prepare Final Text Supplement
Publication
The Secretariat publishes the updated Technical Framework at [1]. An announcement is made to the broadest IHE distribution list, ihenews@ihe.net.