2004-04-14 Ballot Issues Tracking List by gegeshandong

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 26

									#       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?

								
To top