Public Comment Process

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. It's also an excellent chance to engage relevant stakeholder individuals and organizations. Comments are accepted from all.

NOTE: If you receive few or no public comments, that's a bad sign. Presuming we didn't hit perfection on the first try, it means we didn't convince people it was important enough to read in any great detail. That bodes poorly for our ability to convince people it is important enough to read and conform to. Good outreach is a significant part of Public Comment. It's our first stage at marketing the Profile.

NOTICE: These instructions are accessible on the QIBA Wiki as a historical reference only! Independent Profile Authoring Groups are required to oversee the various developmental stages from Draft to Public Comment to Consensus based on the current QUIC endorsement criteria, found HERE: https://qibawiki.rsna.org/images/9/95/QUIC-Review-Criteria-for-New-Profiles-FINAL-v23SEPT2023.pdf.

Preparation:

• Profile Authoring Group follows the Review Process to review and approve the draft for Public Comment publication
• Editor tidies up PC draft (e.g. "accept all changes" in Word) and submits to Profile Authoring Group
• Profile Authoring Group publishes PC draft
• The Profile has now reached the Public Comment Stage. Work toward Consensus begins.

Period: 60 - 90 days (may be extended at the discretion of the committee)

• Profile Authoring Group sends Public Comment announcement to mailing lists
  • explain the location of document to be reviewed, deadline for comment submission, method of submission
  • provide a link to a public comment form (Google forms are recommended for ease of data capture) - see example:
  • reach out to any organizations and individuals that might have an interest or expertise to contribute
• Commenters submit comments to Profile Authoring Group (via web form or emailed comment form)
  • commenters include committee members, other QIBA people, external bodies
  • this is the key point for asynchronous engagement
  • please use the comment forms; it saves the Editor having to transcribe your comments

• When the public comment period expires
  • Profile Authoring Group
    • updates the bullet for this profile on the Profiles page to note when comments closed
    • adds a row on the Comment Resolutions page for the profile (link to the PC doc in the first cell)

Resolution:

• Editor collates all comments into a resolution spreadsheet (see Google Sheet template or Word table
  • sort by line number and priority (Low/Med/High)
  • re-title the leftmost column from "Leave Blank" to "#"
  • fill the leftmost column with incrementing numbers. Now you can refer to "Comment #43", or re-sort the table if you like
  • re-title the rightmost column from "Leave Blank" to "Resolution"
• Editor resolves comments with priority Low
  • turn on Change Tracking in Word
  • for most Low comments (typos), fix it in the Profile document and enter "Done" in the Resolution column of the resolution table
  • if any Low comments prove problematic, elevate to Med
• Profile Authoring Group reviews Med & High comments
  • step through the resolution table
  • 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
  • consider getting a 3-person sub-committee to take a first pass at this and focus the full committee on items needing discussion
    • discussion attempts to achieve consensus on the resolutions whenever possible
    • eventually, if consensus is not forthcoming, the minority opinion may accede or put the issue to a vote.
  • The Google template includes a status column with codewords (Done, TODO, etc) to track progress resolving comments.
• Editor records decision and explanation (as needed) in the Resolution column of the resolution table/spreadsheet
  • When a comment is not accepted, it is particularly important to include a good description of the rationale in the Resolution column as part of meeting our obligation to transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest.
  • Consider having assigned reviewers that cross-check the resolution table against the updated Profile document to confirm everything go in correctly
    • Likely split this task up, giving a chunk of resolutions to each reviewer.

• Profile Authoring Group posts resolution spreadsheet and change-tracked Profile Document on the Wiki
  • This helps people review the resolution of their comments and the changes that resulted from the Public Comment process
• Profile Authoring Group reviews and approves as Consensus
• Modality Coordination Committee reviews and approves as Consensus
• Editor tidies up Consensus draft (e.g. "accept all changes" in Word) and submits to RSNA Staff
• Profile Authoring Group publishes Consensus draft
• The Profile has now reached the Consensus Stage.