Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

Revision as of 03:03, 28 January 2011

It's basically the same review process prior to releasing for Trial Implementation or Publication (and if we want to be good, before Public Comment).

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

Judge the document to be fit for the next phase (Authoring Committee)
Schedule review meeting with Modality Committee
Submit document 1 week before review meeting (Authoring Committee)
Line-by-line review (Modality Committee)
- Walkthrough led by lead author
- Resolve questions/comments/clarifications from Modality Committee
Record vote to approve the document as fit for the next phase (Modality Committee)

All open issues have been clearly listed
Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
Some groundwork projects may be underway

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ===Criteria for Public Comment===
-*
+* All open issues have been clearly listed
+* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
+* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+* Some groundwork projects may be underway
 ===Criteria for Trial Implementation===
-*
+* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
 ===Criteria for Publication===
-*
+* All open issues have been resolved
-*
+* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field
+* Groundwork projects are complete