Difference between revisions of "HL7 Quality Plan"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with 'I (~~~) started this page just to keep track of all the different things that have been said so far about building a quality plan. For example, *In a discussion back in November…') |
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*In continuing discussions on managing DSTUs, we noted on 15 Feb that the request to publish DSTU might include initial negative votes and final negative or unresolved or non-persuasive, however we don't wish to 'raise the bar' on DSTUs but if members have questions on the disposition of the votes it is available to review on the ballot site and we can defer a vote for a week to give those with questions more time to review. Charlie notes we should look at this as part of the quality plan. | *In continuing discussions on managing DSTUs, we noted on 15 Feb that the request to publish DSTU might include initial negative votes and final negative or unresolved or non-persuasive, however we don't wish to 'raise the bar' on DSTUs but if members have questions on the disposition of the votes it is available to review on the ballot site and we can defer a vote for a week to give those with questions more time to review. Charlie notes we should look at this as part of the quality plan. | ||
*Inclusion of whitepaper material such as http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Cookbook_for_Security_Considerations presented in Phoenix was discussed. Options included: Do we indicate we recommend people use it, offer it as guidance as part of our quality plan, or send the link and note the Working Group can use it or not as they like. | *Inclusion of whitepaper material such as http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Cookbook_for_Security_Considerations presented in Phoenix was discussed. Options included: Do we indicate we recommend people use it, offer it as guidance as part of our quality plan, or send the link and note the Working Group can use it or not as they like. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Quality Analysis in Ballot |Additional steps by Publishing since January WGM]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:19, 15 May 2010
I (LynnL) started this page just to keep track of all the different things that have been said so far about building a quality plan.
For example,
- In a discussion back in November 2008, it was described as the quality plan – how do we know what we’re producing is good, from a customer perspective, how are we managing issues, how to anticipate and prevent issues.
- In preparation for Phoenix we talked about it on 11 Jan in terms of:
- Quality plan: Bob notes it was inspired at ITS Meeting, where is responsibility on such issues, what are the components of a quality plan. Ballot process, QA steps, what do we mean by quality and how do we measure it; ambiguity, cross-artifact consistency etc. Plan should be owned by CTO and TSC.
- On Jan 16 at the Phoenix WGM we clarified that evaluating U.S. WGM for effectiveness postmortem was intended towards measuring meeting quality not about product quality.
CMcCay notes that the chair of HL7 wants an organizational quality plan of which a product quality plan is a start.
- Also at the Jan WGM we reviewed Woody's slide show and Bob Dolin was going to discuss it with the BOD on the Tuesday meeting at the WGM.
- In continuing discussions on managing DSTUs, we noted on 15 Feb that the request to publish DSTU might include initial negative votes and final negative or unresolved or non-persuasive, however we don't wish to 'raise the bar' on DSTUs but if members have questions on the disposition of the votes it is available to review on the ballot site and we can defer a vote for a week to give those with questions more time to review. Charlie notes we should look at this as part of the quality plan.
- Inclusion of whitepaper material such as http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Cookbook_for_Security_Considerations presented in Phoenix was discussed. Options included: Do we indicate we recommend people use it, offer it as guidance as part of our quality plan, or send the link and note the Working Group can use it or not as they like.
