Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[Image:QIBA_WIKI_BLURB.jpg|600px]]
 +
 +
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
−
The same review an approval process occurs prior to releasing a Public Comment Draft, a Reviewed, Draft, or a Tested Draft.  Just the criteria change.  
+
Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Profile Authoring Group at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each Stage]]:
 +
* The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''
 +
* The '''[[Public Comment Process|Public Comment Review]]''' is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.
  
−
Remember, this is the QA point.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
 
  
−
==Review and Approval==
+
Remember, this is the QA point for your work.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
−
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase (Technical Committee''')
 
−
** Schedule review meeting(s) as needed with open committee
 
−
** Submit document 1 week before review meeting
 
−
** Line-by-line review/walkthrough led by editor
 
−
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications
 
−
** Vote (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.
 
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Public Comment draft===
+
==Review (Profile Authoring Group)==
−
* All open issues have been clearly listed
+
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Profile Authoring Groups are not required to follow this specific process.
−
* Some groundwork projects may be underway
+
* ''Editor'' of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
−
* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' assigns/'''recruits reviewers''' for Profile sections
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are mostly clear/complete enough to implement
+
** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
** It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
 +
* ''Reviewers'' check the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' as well as '''[[How_to_Write_a_Profile#Follow_Profile_Writing_Guidelines|guidelines for clarity/quality]]'''
 +
** A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
 +
* ''Reviewers'' '''report back''' to the Profile Authoring Group
 +
* ''Authors and Profile Authoring Group'' resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
 +
* ''Co-chair'' accepts a motion to send the document to ballot
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Reviewed draft===
+
==Approve (Profile Authoring Group)==
−
* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
+
The main purpose of '''Profile Authoring Group''' approval is to '''confirm that all the detailed contents are correct, and the Profile meets the criteria''' for the stage.
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
 
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
 
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
 
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Tested draft===
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' submits the '''Profile document''' and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|supporting document for that stage]]'''
−
* All open issues have been resolved
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' circulates a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' asking Profile Authoring Group members to approve that the content of the '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field
+
** The Profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
−
* Groundwork projects are complete
+
** The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
** In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a meeting.
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group members'' review the profile and supporting document and confirm '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' reviews and ratifies the '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' results
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' reviews any contentious ballot comment resolutions

Latest revision as of 17:37, 19 January 2024

QIBA WIKI BLURB.jpg


Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Profile Authoring Group at each Stage:

  • The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the criteria differ
  • The Public Comment Review is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.


Remember, this is the QA point for your work. It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be good.

Review (Profile Authoring Group)

The following review process is strongly recommended, but Profile Authoring Groups are not required to follow this specific process.

  • Editor of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
  • Profile Authoring Group assigns/recruits reviewers for Profile sections
    • Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
    • Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
    • It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
  • Reviewers check the Profile meets the criteria for the stage as well as guidelines for clarity/quality
    • A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
  • Reviewers report back to the Profile Authoring Group
  • Authors and Profile Authoring Group resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
  • Co-chair accepts a motion to send the document to ballot

Approve (Profile Authoring Group)

The main purpose of Profile Authoring Group approval is to confirm that all the detailed contents are correct, and the Profile meets the criteria for the stage.

  • Profile Authoring Group submits the Profile document and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the supporting document for that stage
  • Profile Authoring Group circulates a Ballot asking Profile Authoring Group members to approve that the content of the Profile meets the criteria for the stage
    • The Profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
    • The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
    • In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a meeting.
  • Profile Authoring Group members review the profile and supporting document and confirm Profile meets the criteria for the stage
  • Profile Authoring Group reviews and ratifies the Ballot results
  • Profile Authoring Group reviews any contentious ballot comment resolutions
Retrieved from "https://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Review_Process&oldid=19637"