Difference between revisions of "Public Comment Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
** commenters include committee members, other QIBA People, external bodies
 
** commenters include committee members, other QIBA People, external bodies
 
** this is the key point for asynchronous engagement
 
** this is the key point for asynchronous engagement
** please use the provided comment form
+
** please use the provided comment form, it saves the author having to transcribe your comments
 
* Collate all comments into a spreadsheet ('''secretariat/author''')
 
* Collate all comments into a spreadsheet ('''secretariat/author''')
 
** sort by line number and priority
 
** sort by line number and priority

Revision as of 02:52, 28 January 2011

Public Comment is intended to allow both regular participants in QIBA Activities and also those who don't have the time to dedicate to regular participation a chance to contribute their thoughts on proposed specifications before they are formally released. Comments are accepted from all.

Public comment should be considered the prelude to publication. A committee should be largely satisfied with the contents of a document before it is sent out for Public Comment.


Period: 30 days

  • Approve for public comment (modality committee)
  • Post PC draft of Document on the Wiki (author/secretariat)
  • Send announcement to mailing lists (secretariat)
    • detail location of document to be reviewed, deadline for comment submission, method of submission
    • provide a link to the QIBA Public Comment Template
  • Email comments to secretariat (Commenters)
    • commenters include committee members, other QIBA People, external bodies
    • this is the key point for asynchronous engagement
    • please use the provided comment form, it saves the author having to transcribe your comments
  • Collate all comments into a spreadsheet (secretariat/author)
    • sort by line number and priority
  • Resolve comments with priority Low (author)
    • if any Low comments prove problematic, elevate to Med
  • Review Med & High comments (profile writing committee)
    • walk through document
    • each comment may be:
      • accepted, proposed text accepted as is
      • rejected, committee does not agree with issue (document reason, e.g. out of scope, )
      • resolved, issue accepted but resolved differently than proposed
  • Record resolution in spreadsheet (author)
  • Post resolution spreadsheet and updated Document on the Wiki (author/secretariat)