Ian Cheong wrote: > At 1:00 pm +1100 18/3/06, Tim Churches wrote: >> [...]As many people (myself included) have observed on this list (and its >> predecessor) over the years, the health IT standards (cottage) industry >> in Australia definitely needs reform, in particular the tendency for >> participation in standards development to be restricted to those who are >> funded or otherwise able to attend standards development committee >> meetings in person. Movement towards a Web-enabled, more transparent >> standards development fishbowl, similar to that used by the IETF >> (Internet Engineering Task Force) with its RFC (request for comment) >> process, would be most welcome. Similarly I applaud the recognition for >> prioritisation and a clear timetable for standards selection or >> development. So the document is a pretty good effort, IMHO. Now, if >> NeHTA (whoops, I mean NEHTA - the mixed capitalisation of their acronym >> is now passé, I am told) can just make it actually happen... > > Well.... the ISO standards development model has been successfully > applied in many countries to produce national and international > standards, on which the modern world is founded. > > Does IETF go to the same pains to ensure "balance of interests" > (vendors, consumers, goverment, academia) on its committees? > Does OASIS? > Does W3C?
I said that the health IT standards development process needs reform, Ian, not a revolution. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and no reason why the desirable aspects of the ISO standards development process can't be retained. Just updated to improve participation and the mechanisms for choosing representatives with decision-making powers. It's a bit like the situation with the ALP. > Participation is not restricted to standards australia committees, > except in properly constituted committees which are that way to ensure > balance of interests are represented. Like many interest groups, people > who are actually interested are able to participate. And the open public > comment period is open to all comers with any views. My view is that reform is needed to ensure that the membership of the committees is representative and diverse (not the same people on every committee), and to enable input from interested parties to be harnessed at a much earlier stage of standards development, and to provide a mechanism by comments are acknowledged, discussed and accounted for (even if they are ultimately not reflected in the nascent standard). > We do have health informatics standards published in Australia by the > way. And nearly all are freely available. Yes, jolly good. >> "Greater standardization (sic) is central to Australia's e-health >> agenda." > > "Standardization" is the presently accepted international term used by > Standards Australia. Well, there's something which needs to be changed for a start... Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
