FHIR is balloted as a single document. There is therefore a single set of ballot comments to be dealt with. The FHIR Management Group (FMG) has responsibility for ensuring that all ballot comments are resolved but this does not mean that FMG has to do the actual resolution of all comments but instead means that FMG must ensure that all comments are resolved by an appropriate group; any that remain must then be resolved by FMG.
- --Lmckenzi 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC) At the moment, FMG can't technically resolve anything because we're not a WG. We need to decide if it's appropriate for FMG to ever handle resolutions itself, or whether it should always have to delegate to another WG.
The connectathons provide a further complexity since the work done during a connectathon has an objective of identifying issues with the specification which will lead to changes being made. The FHIR Governance Board have considered this issue and decided that for a DSTU ballot, substative changes may be made to the specification after the of the ballot provided that all voters are notified of the changes and are given an opportunity to comment on those changes. If a ballot is for a Normative Standard no substantive changes can be made to that specification as a consequence of connectathon comments. It is unlikely that significant changes would be required at this stage, but if an issue is uncovered that warrants a change in the specification it must be re-balloted. This policy requires a change in the principles and procedures laid down in the GOM and FGB will pursue such changes.
The process for ballot resolution should run as follows:
- Ballot Closes
- Ballot comments are reviewed by FMG (designate ???) who will allocate issues to the appropriate work group. Those that cannot be allocated to a specific work group will be allocated to FMG
- Each work group will process its allocated ballot comments in the same way as any set of ballot comments except it may only refer issues back to FMG, not to any other work group, (though this referral may include a recommendation of a work group they believe to be more appropriate). This restriction is to ensure FMG can keep track of all ballot comments.
- A connectathon happens
- Comments raised during the connectathon are entered onto a ballot spreadsheet together with the disposition made or proposed.
- FMG will take ownership of this list of comments and process them in the same way as for a normal set of ballot comments EXCEPT THAT this ballot spreadsheet will also be circulated to the ballot pool for comments on the disposition. Where a member of the ballot pool objects to a disposition they may join the work group’s discussion on that item. (What if they really really object???)
- --Lmckenzi 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Why do we need to do this? No balloter gets to see any other balloter's comments or object to them. The only thing that's "special" here is we give special dispensation for comments coming in late if they're from a particular source. So long as that gets in the GOM, I don't think any other rules need to apply. (We may want a process to ensure that Connectathon comments are limited to those things actually learned during the connectathon as opposed to being a back door for those who didn't get their ballot comments in on time.)
- FMG will draft suggested dispositions to all the comments for which it has direct responsibility and will invite other groups to consider those dispositions as it sees fit. As far as possible FMG should pass final decision on dispositions to appropriate work groups but where no such group exists FMG is the authoritative group.
- Appeals against FMG dispositions will follow the usual appeals procedure.
- --Lmckenzi 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC) No appeals process is needed - people withdraw their votes or they don't. (No appeals process exists for dispositions from other WGs . . .)
Back to FHIR_Management_Group