Talk:OHT Architecture Project Value Proposition Survey

Questions that arose in the initial review:

• <Tooling WG> 2) What is the intent of question 2 - head count or FTE - recognize that participation in OHT can be in many different roles, not just coders. Suggest defined measure such as small= <5, medium=5-15,large>15 - and FTE measures will be unlikely to be reliable, but headcount is not a good measure of intensity, especially spread out over time.
• <Tooling WG> 3) What is meant by contribution - HL7 has contributed source files, testing and review, but not code.
• <Tooling WG> 7) There was discussion about what was meant by a single Tooling Architecture with differing interpretations of what the OHT Architecture Project's intent was - further clarification in the introduction or definition of terms is needed. There was general agreement that the Foundation Projects needed to follow an architecture framework and be interoperable, but the terms architecture principles and architecture framework were used instead of the more specific conceptual, logical, platform bound or technology bound. No expectation that OHT should focus on a single technology stack.