PIC Survey Results – Sept 2015

19 people responded to the survey, but all 19 did not respond to every question

Comments:

  • Moving processes more into the more agile "virtual world" eg. virtual/remoteattendence has same rights as in-person attendance, enable "group-chats" (eg Skype) to have same decision-making standing as e-mail communications, etc. US vs International membership rights Set policy that all HL7 Int surveys can be done anonymously!
  • The Nomination and Election process of the Board, in particular the (non-)involvement of the Affiliates.
  • Can we make the progress of projects meeting their deadlines ahead, on time, or behind time, visible to the constituents, or is this just a summary that could be given either in the opening of WG sessions, or at one of the breakfast meeting reports by the board as a whole?
  • Two items, 1) more consistency on how the end-game for posting ballot reconciliation final files and request for withdrawal of negatives (like two weeks for review and minimum content of the email sent by the ballot tool 2) having more group with technical content create a Supplemental Guide like the Attachments WG did for input in the US-realm HIPAA regulation process (as Thom Kuhn, ACP, for more details)
  • I wish there was a way to give greater credence to those who actually use and understand standards, especially in balloting. This is not just an HL7 matter, but one found in most all standards organizations - too many flies on the wall who blindly rubber stamp ballots without understanding what is being proposed. Our role in the SDO community would benefit if we found a solution, and our standards would be better and gain wider voluntary acceptance.
  • It would be helpful if the current project initiation to sunset process is visited. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine who is responsible for what when, what the approval path(s) are, and where these are documented.
  • I believe this is already a topic, but it would be nice to understand how to produce a WhitePaper and what the ballot requirements are.
  • Processes to rapidly address emerging issues in standards (CDA Stylesheet, CCDA DSTU 2.1 update, negationInd in QRDA) need refinement and documentation. Present processes address normal delivery cycles, but there isn't a well-defined process to address things needing rapid attention.
  • The DSTU comments page/process should be reviewed.
  • Helping to update the three-year planning process (selfish request as I am starting to work on that for TSC and need pilot groups...)

Comments:

  • Keep doing what you are doing ... (updates, surveys, etc.)
  • Just keep doing a good job in maintaining the interests of the (global!) membership!
  • Give a talk at the one of the morning sessions on areas of concentration for the year, in regards to improvements
  • Present current and future issues at the Co-chairs dinner
  • Have fun contest at the Plenary and find/host an interest topic for a birds of a feather in Q5, or Q0 at the morning breakfast.
  • Issue newsletter. Report at the co-chairs dinner, as well as the Morning meeting the next day.
  • This can be a double edged sword, but what about a 'suggestion box' being made available during the WGMs. Even better would be a poster board where people can attach postits with suggestions - that would allow attendees/staff to build on each other. If you go the poster board route, (1) bring blue painters tape to tape the postits down (just a little piece works) so they don't walk off on somebodies shoe (this has happened to me...), (2) occasionally review the board and cleanup just has you would with an online moderated forum, whether that means grouping postits or removing inappropriate ones.
  • A brief update at the co-chairs dinner might improve visibility

1