Difference between revisions of "Public Comment Process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
** please use the provided comment form, it saves the author having to transcribe your comments | ** 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 (Low/Med/High) |
* Resolve comments with priority Low ('''author''') | * Resolve comments with priority Low ('''author''') | ||
** if any Low comments prove problematic, elevate to Med | ** if any Low comments prove problematic, elevate to Med |
Revision as of 21:41, 17 February 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 (Low/Med/High)
- Resolve comments with priority Low (author)
- if any Low comments prove problematic, elevate to Med
- Review Med & High comments (profile writing group)
- 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)