VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 26 POSTED ON: 10/27/2011
# Date Action Required Priori Submitter ty 1 Action: Add a column indicating if you need face to face time 1 Joann at the WGM. Larson CQ typically has several ballots running at the same time, each of which might have a large number of line items. Not all items can 2 be heard during definitions of Pending and Refer in Co-Chair Action: Clarify a WGM. However, we do have members who feel 2 Joann Tab a) My understanding of refer and pending is that we thought Larson refer in fact would belong to the receiving committee. There is no formal tracking in place (though we know this is an issue). In theory (and in a perfect world) the item would be received and resolved, the resolution communicated to the balloter with a cc: to the original committee, which would ultimately result in removal of the negative (keeping in mind the difference in negative line items and overall ballot negative.) Some committees have 700+ line items and demanding day jobs ... obviously we are stretching the limits of volunteerism. b) This could also include items pending guidance from the ARB or TSC Chair. The concept of a Pending Harmonization category seems like a good idea, especially if these items could be queued up for resolution at the next Harmonization meeting or Thursday night roundtable (although some committees are still working on ballots Friday and beyond in conference calls.) Or what if we had a standing meeting Q4 each day with a representative from each committee "empowered" by their committee to work out a 3 Action: Is it possible to set up a validation without using 1 Joann macros such that if someone creates an affirmative ballot but Larson has negative comments, an error warning pops up (or it automatically switches the overall vote to negative - Note: This is not favoured because the voter wouldn't know that their vote was switched). How would this affect the web enabled voting that allows a person to select: affirmative and still put in a negative ballot, or affirmative ballot with negative comments. We could simply state on the spreadsheet that affirmatives with negative comments will be treated as affirmative-suggestions. They still need to be considered by the committee but not necessarily resolved. OR 1. Automatically graying out the negative choices for Vote and Type, if the over-all vote is Affirmative. I forget why that wouldn't work 4 Action: Is it possible to create a macro that unparses the 3 Gavin Tong consolidated spreadsheets back into individual spreadsheets that can be returned to the submitter? 5 The ability to block 'like items' is essentially to mark them as alike 1 and then sort (different from a sort) 6 Disposition Comments, should Pending, Refered and Considered 2 Ballot TF remain in the new spreadsheet? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Task Force Resp. Due Complete Decision d GT Done Done Added a pop up warning advising people that if they vote affirmative they should make sure they don't have negative line items in the comments portion Done # Date Action Prio rity We need a method to address submission of the same comments to multiple committees. Here is an example of the problem. 1. A submitter submits the same issue to multiple TCs and lets them sort-out the issue-ownership. Discovery of these duplicates is an inexact process. possibilities for change: · Duplicate issue submissions will be rejected as non-related [or labeled as a duplicate] when discovered. An issue sent to an incorrect committee is always rejected as non-related. · All issues that are outside of explicit ballot-scope restrictions will be rejected as non-related. · The co-chairs of the committees, of their appointees, will pre- determine issue that are subject to the above actions and report them for one committee approval action versus a vote on 1 each one. 2 A submitter groups issues that, in his view, are related. He sends them to one committee, despite what ballot the issues appear on. This causes more than one committee to spend time 2 categorizing and referring the issues. 2 A submitter categorizes obvious typos as negatives. Posible change: 3 · A committee will reclassify any typos as affirm-typo 1 A submitter categorizes obvious publication editorial issues as negatives to a TC. Propsed change: · All publication editorial issues are to be referred to Publications 4 for follow-up 1 Despite language restricting a re-ballot to the changes made since the last ballot, negatives are posted against already- balloted and accepted material. The impact of these abuses includes: o Waste of committee time on non-substantive issues o Distortion of ballot statistics o Delay of standards approval o Discouraging authors who must deal with issues not related to 5 their work. 1 Potentially need an updated flow chart of balloting processes and the steps that occur when decisions are made I.e. after a 6 committee finds it not-persuasive, what happens next? 3 Handling affirmative ballots with Negative line items/comments: We either need to get this resolved or at least put in some temporary procedure to tide us over until the issue is settled. Here is 1 option: 1. Resolve the line item as appropriate (Persuasive, Persuasive with Mod, Not Persuasive, Not Related). Note that when the TC is deep into reconciliation using the consolidated spreadsheet or database, they will be unaware of the over-all status of a particular balloter's ballot. 2. Return the ballot comments to the balloter with the TC's findings. The return document may be tailored for that person or it may be the consolidated spreadsheet or database report. 3. Request that the balloter withraw the negative line items. 4. Now what? Do they send a notice of withdrawal to HQ? Karen Van is not going to have a record of a Negative ballot. What would she do with the email? 5. ALternate suggestion, boldly state on the spreadsheet that affirmatives with negative comments will be treated as affirmative- suggestions. They still need to be considered by the committee but not necessarily resolved. OR 1. Automatically graying out the negative choices for Vote and Type, if the over-all vote is 7 Affirmative. I forget why that wouldn't work 1 Situation 2: I have negative line items in the Shared Messages ballot that were referred in from another ballot group, CMETs. The original ballot group, CMETs, is on record at HQ as having a negative vote against the ballot. Shared Messages has a No Vote on record at HQ. By referring the negative line items to CQ, CMETs might or might not have remaining negative line items against it. Presumably CMETs needs to ask for a Withdrawal of the negative. That, in turn, clears the negative at HQ if the response is favorable. CQ would follow the procedure outlined above where there is no existing negative vote against it. Do we need a policy to cover this situation? Does the Negative Vote follow its negative line items? Might a Negative Vote be split into 2 negative votes? How do we let HQ know about 8 that? 1 Can a committee take a vote on all of the improperly submitted ballot line items as mentioned above and choose to vote on the handeling of them all at once (The co-chairs of the committees, of their appointees, will pre-determine issue that are subject to the above actions and report them for one committee approval action versus a vote on 9 each one.) 1 I am concerned that 'band aid' solutions to the PnP and bylaws with respect to balloting will lead to a non-uniform and unclear method of presenting the balloting information. I would like to a propose a joint work item with the Ballot TF, PIC and whoever it was on the Board that was looking at Balloting, to re-write a section 10 on balloting to make it all clear. 3 Clarification that Votes are Calculated based on the combination of Affirmative and Negative votes, not abstains and 'no votes' (which 11 are used for helping attain numbers for quorum.) 3 Freida to convey to John that PIC would like to see a broader involvement in the online ballot resolution development with John as final authority; Elec. Health Record was proposing resolution 12 09/11/2003 that might (or may night) be rolled out. ? Reported in PA 1/22/2004: per roundtable a Negative ballot on storyboard (or any informative item) does not need to be responded to. -F Hall: It seems this should be included in instructions/education for balloters so it does not need to the impression that ballot items 13 01/22/2004 are not being dealt with. ? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Submitter Task Force Decision Resp. Due Complete Change d to PNP/Byla ws required? Joan Miller Joan Miller Joan Miller Task force felt that although this is annoying, it is their right. The ballot spreadsheet already has some comments on this and we didn't feel that there was much more we could add. Open to suggestions though. Yes Joan Miller Task force felt that although this is annoying, it is their right. The ballot spreadsheet already has some comments on this and we didn't feel that there was much more we could add. Open to suggestions though. No Joan Miller No Gavin/Joann Yes? After reviewing the bylaws and the PnP it doesn't seem to be completely clear as to how to handle such situations. (reference Bylaws section 14.04.01 AFFIRMATIVE BALLOTS - All comments accompanying affirmative ballots shall be considered by the Technical Committee.) Recommendation: propose new PnP, 14.04.01.02 - Affirmative Ballots received with negative comments will be treated by the Technical Committee as an Affirmative ballot with affirmative comments. All negative line items submitted on a Ballot with an Overall Affirmative vote, will be treated as affirmative comments. And 15.05.01.01 - Affirmative Ballots received with negative comments will be treated by the Technical Committee as an affirmative ballot with affirmative comments. Note: I am confused by the numbering, need to check that this would be correct. Note: this change ties into Row 11 Joann request. Yes Joan Miller Gavin Joann Larson (Imported from PIC Tracking Issues) Freida 11/3/2003 (mported from PIC Tracking Issues ) Ballot TF Change to spreadsheet required? Yes It should already be in the instructions need to double check Yes? Yes Yes, Once PnP is changed Ballot Category Comments Submitted by Ballot Issues - General Links not working Links in the ballot seem to work inconsistently. consistently For example some CMET links take me directly to the CMET in question; however, some just take me to the top of a section which appears to be a master list of all the CMETS. Is the hyperlink pointing to an anchor which was not defined? Navigation and memory Once a link is selected, for example say a CMET, which is in a different domain, it is hard to see where the reviewer was in the ballot with respect to the navigator. The reviewer would like to return to that CMET in the future and not have to use links. Printing and text search A text search; just something as simple as Find and Find Next, is needed for ballot review. This would enablthe reviewer to find all the domains using a particular CMET and ensuring that the uses are harmonized. It also helps an implementer because if he/she wants to know how they do a particular thing, they can search on a few key words and may quickly find an example illustrating what they are seeking. A "printable" (PDF) form of the ballot will seem to resolve this issue. A Siemens person created a PDF of the recent ballot which was over 7500 pages (65meg), and the find/searching works nicely. Note that this does not work for the non-html files (Excel spreadsheets, etc. that are pointed-to by the html files). For ballot purposes, it would be good to be able to physically print (to paper) a lot of the narrative - especially those pieces which are balloted as Normative. The only way to assure a thorough review, is to have it on paper because this allows comparison of sections. Also with a paper copy, the reviewer is less likely to loose their place like one does with the electronic copy. Identification of Change bars: Since some portions of V3 normative material have already been approved, and these should be flagged so comments are not submitted on the already approved material - and immediately regarded as "not related" or "not persuasive". This wastes both the time of the commenter and the committee. On-screen review There needs to be some understanding by the problems end-user (the ballot reviewer) in terms of what kind of display screen s/he should be using. i.e. if the expectation is 1024x768, then it becomes very frustrating to the reviewer who has only 800x600. Some people use 1600x1200, but it's hard to read - most reviewers do not have a wide-screen laptop. Changing ballot content Please limit ballot fixes during the 30-day voting period. The ballot is what it is upon the open of the ballot period, and should not be modified without adding +30 days to the closing date. Ballot package At some point, the already-approved material availability needs to be "members only". So far, as long as you know the link, you don't have to authenticate yourself as a member. The V3 ballot material (so far) has not required sign- on to the HL7 website as a member. If you know the URL, you can get it. This was of no great concern, since it was all "pre-Standard" material... but now that some components are "real" or "DSTU" standards, and because these components are inter-twined with the rest of the emerging V3 material, it may affect how the HL7 organization wants to make the information available. E.g., only HL7 members should be allowed to access the approved standard(s). Icons and level of Even with the provided lists, it was hard to CMETs distinguish which CMETs were being balloted at which level. The icons are too vague. Improve handling of We need a method to address submission of misdirected or the same comments to multiple committees. misclassified ballot Here is an example of the problem. submissions 1. A submitter submits the same issue to multiple TCs and lets them sort-out the issue- ownership. Discovery of these duplicates is an inexact process. 2. A submitter groups issues that, in his view, are related. He sends them to one committee, despite what ballot the issues appear on. This causes more than one committee to spend time categorizing and referring the issues. 3. A submitter categorizes obvious typos as negatives. 4. A submitter categorizes obvious publication editorial issues as negatives to a TC. 5. Despite language restricting a re-ballot to the changes made since the last ballot, negatives are posted against already- balloted and accepted material. The impact of these abuses includes: o Waste of committee time on non- substantive issues o Distortion of ballot statistics o Delay of standards approval o Discouraging authors who must deal with issues not related to their work. Here are few possibilities for change: · Duplicate issue submissions will be rejected as non-related [or labeled as a duplicate] when discovered. An issue sent Electronic Voting Issues to an incorrect committee is always rejected Voting Sign-up We would like to have a single webpage, where we can check-off those ballots for which a voter wants to be a participant or observer, and then be able to click on a "submit" button - instead of doing this multiple times (the last round was something like 28x2 screen flips). The screen form would look like a column of ballot descriptions, then a column of check boxes (one per ballot, to subscribe to that ballot pool), and then a column of "participant" / "observer" radio buttons (with the default in the "participant" field). On-line voting We would like to have a single webpage for voting on the various ballots, without having to scroll down to a ballot, click on link, choose the vote link, vote, go back to the previous page, scroll down, and start again. For now, one small thing that would help, would be that the voter's cursor should return to the last place visited, instead of taking us to the top of the ballot list. Ballot Pool - already a We would also like one email message member indicating which ballots we are automatically (or manually) signed-up for - instead of getting the "you are already in this ballot pool" message. Ballot identification The unique ballot numbers are helpful, but still would suggest a serial number for those ballots that change their level during the ballot cycle, i.e. a ballot was 1st Membership and then changes to 4th Committee. Later you will have the 1st Membership and this could be confusing. Ballot identification It would help greatly if the ballots on the web page retain a permanent position. I.e., don't insert new ballots in between the ones listed on the page last week, and don't remove any of them if the ballot material is not ready (just keep a placeholder, saying the ballot will not occur, etc.) Email confirmations We would like to get one summary email (at Siemens the end of the day) that has the confirmations of all the individual's votes. If this is not possible, just changing the subject line of the existing individual emails ("Your HL7 Ballot") so that it also indicates the specific ballot by name (e.g., "Your HL7 Ballot - xxxxxxxx") would help. Email notifications Co-Chairs receive a notice every time, Siemens someone places a vote. Could this be done in summary form instead? (Already submitted to PIC) Email reminders The "Help us achieve quorum" and "xxxx Siemens ballot closes on <date>" email reminders might be consolidated, such that a single email contains a list of all the ballots. Thus, there would be a single "...quorum" email, and a single email for each <date>, instead of the 28x2 emails that were possible on the last round. Removal of negative Automated notification of request to remove a Siemens votes negative vote, and the ability to remove a negative vote on line is requested. We would suggest withdrawing of negative overall ballot votes be web-enabled; such that a profile is kept for each voting member and we can withdraw any vote within a specified period. Thus, at any moment in time, a voter could see their outstanding negatives, and withdraw them as requested. The Co-Chairs should also be able to see this information as it relates to a particular ballot. (Already submitted to PIC) Errors/Update List If we can sign-up for multiple ballots on a Siemens single page - perhaps another "check box" can be added to ensure the person is also subscribed to the "errors/updates" list. (Instead of subscribing from within the V3 ballot pages.) Removal of negative Automated and online "templated" Karen and Mike votes communication with the consensus group for ballot announcements, communication of ballot open/close dates, and requests to negative voters to withdraw their negative votes. User could opt out of the automated messages. [Joan's note: Which ones?] This would also likely include a page whereby members can subscribe themselves to multiple ballot groups by clicking radio buttons (rather than going in to each individually as is now the case). Automated and online interaction by the Karen and Mike consensus group members to complete administrative function such as removing themselves from a ballot pool, withdrawing Removal of negative votes retracting negative votes, etc. and ANSI Documentations Capture of these automated/online Karen and Mike communications/interactions in a database that can produce documentation required for ANSI approval and audits. Voting from one screen Enhancement of current on-line voting to Karen and Mike allow voters to vote on various ballots on one screen. Owning group or person Voter Savings Estimate Additional time for Coordinator Woody? 1 hour per person per ballot No additional time Included above Included above Publishing? 1-2 hours per person for No additional time each ballot Publishing? 3+ hours per person for each No additional time ballot Mike Craig? 1 hour per person per ballot No additional time Time for re-review of ballots; No additional time made worse when there are no change bars NA NA Included above NA Major saivngs! At least 4 3-4 hours last ballot cycle fielding quarters of WGM face-to- complaints and questions face meeting time in the affected TC plus most of the post-WGM teleconference calls. These calls, and the people who attend, would be better used in develoing new normative work rather than re- work caused by bad ballot processes. This corresponds with Karen's 1/2 hour per person per ballot No additional time and Mike's list - item # 1 on the cycle next worksheet. This corresponds with Karen's 1 hour per person per ballot No additional time and Mike's list - item # 4 on the cycle next worksheet. 1/2 hour per person per ballot No additional time cycle 1/2 hour per person per ballot 3 hours per ballot cycle cycle Included above Included above 1/2 hour per person per ballot 1/2 hour per ballot cycle cycle Several hours per co-chair No additional time per ballot cycle; varies by number of participants and size of ballot. Scales badly for large ballots, such as EHR. 1/2 hour per person per ballot 1/2 hour per ballot cycle to address cycle voter complaints This corresponds with Karen's 1/2 hour per person per ballot 3 hours per ballot cycle - but depends and Mike's list - item Row 23 cycle on number of negatives to be removed and 24. 1/4 hour per person per ballot No additional time cycle Requires Change To Requires change to Spreadsheet? PNP/Bylaws?
Pages to are hidden for
"2004-04-14 Ballot Issues Tracking List"Please download to view full document