Difference between revisions of "Success criteria for TD"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Charliemccay (talk | contribs) (New page: This page is a strawman set of questions proposed by Charlie McCay. They have not been reviewed of approved by the T3F. The TD is successful when there are clear answers to the followi...) |
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The TD is successful when there are clear answers to the following types of question: | The TD is successful when there are clear answers to the following types of question: | ||
| − | + | ==Initial posting== | |
*What is HL7 doing in the area of xxx? Where xxx is an area of interest to a member | *What is HL7 doing in the area of xxx? Where xxx is an area of interest to a member | ||
** what publications exist? | ** what publications exist? | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
** When will it deliver? | ** When will it deliver? | ||
** What can I do to make that faster / more likely to deliver on time? | ** What can I do to make that faster / more likely to deliver on time? | ||
| − | ** What has happened recently (is it really active?, has it delivered on | + | ** What has happened recently (is it really active?, has it delivered on schedule?) What is happening to this publication? |
| − | schedule?) What is happening to this publication? | ||
*How do I know what to do at a WGM? | *How do I know what to do at a WGM? | ||
| Line 23: | Line 22: | ||
**What is the ballot history for this document (when was it balloted, and what were the comments and resolutions) | **What is the ballot history for this document (when was it balloted, and what were the comments and resolutions) | ||
**Are there any plans to produce a revision for this document? | **Are there any plans to produce a revision for this document? | ||
| + | ==Further notes from e-mail== | ||
| + | (McCay) I think that it would be useful to establish clear lines of responsibility and to establish how these committees do/will/should work together to deliver answers to them. It seems to me tht a key role for the TD (and T3F) is to ensure that this is delivered in a co-ordinated way, and that while all the committees should be aware of the overall questions that HL7 has to be able to answer, [the TD] should devise a set of questions that each committee will uniquely be responsible for answering... Here is a first try as some committee-specific questions: | ||
| + | *"How does HL7 do modeling and what methods does it use for that?" This is an MnM question, and documented in the HDF. | ||
| + | *"What is the technical architecture that HL7 specifications should be expressed in?" This is an MnM issue to be documented in the HDF. | ||
| + | *"How do we know if the technical architecture is fit for purpose, and whether HL7 specifications and products conform to it?" This is an ARB issue. | ||
| + | *"How does HL7 make the work that it does visible?" (What are the projects and work-items, and are they run in project groups, or within committees that are running a number of projects?) This is a PIC / Project Life-cycle question. | ||
| + | *"How should rooms be allocated, when should out of cycle meetings happen and to what extent should they be funded by HL7? What about conference call facilities approval -- what are the criteria for approving these, and who is making the determinations? The TD should provide recommendations. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:43, 3 April 2007
This page is a strawman set of questions proposed by Charlie McCay. They have not been reviewed of approved by the T3F.
The TD is successful when there are clear answers to the following types of question:
Initial posting
- What is HL7 doing in the area of xxx? Where xxx is an area of interest to a member
- what publications exist?
- what active projects / workitems are there?
- what committee is responsible for that area?
- What is happening on this project?
- When will it deliver?
- What can I do to make that faster / more likely to deliver on time?
- What has happened recently (is it really active?, has it delivered on schedule?) What is happening to this publication?
- How do I know what to do at a WGM?
- What is the status of the HL7 specification or document?
- Who is using / plans to use this publication?
- What feedback was received to this DSTU?
- What change proposals are open for this publication?
- Who maintains this document, and where do I send comments / questions
- What is the ballot history for this document (when was it balloted, and what were the comments and resolutions)
- Are there any plans to produce a revision for this document?
Further notes from e-mail
(McCay) I think that it would be useful to establish clear lines of responsibility and to establish how these committees do/will/should work together to deliver answers to them. It seems to me tht a key role for the TD (and T3F) is to ensure that this is delivered in a co-ordinated way, and that while all the committees should be aware of the overall questions that HL7 has to be able to answer, [the TD] should devise a set of questions that each committee will uniquely be responsible for answering... Here is a first try as some committee-specific questions:
- "How does HL7 do modeling and what methods does it use for that?" This is an MnM question, and documented in the HDF.
- "What is the technical architecture that HL7 specifications should be expressed in?" This is an MnM issue to be documented in the HDF.
- "How do we know if the technical architecture is fit for purpose, and whether HL7 specifications and products conform to it?" This is an ARB issue.
- "How does HL7 make the work that it does visible?" (What are the projects and work-items, and are they run in project groups, or within committees that are running a number of projects?) This is a PIC / Project Life-cycle question.
- "How should rooms be allocated, when should out of cycle meetings happen and to what extent should they be funded by HL7? What about conference call facilities approval -- what are the criteria for approving these, and who is making the determinations? The TD should provide recommendations.
