David Guest wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: >> On the international openhealth mailing list some months ago, there was a >> discussion on this with respect open source health software and a proposed >> US accreditation mechanism - see >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00656.html - if >> you scroll down you'll see the entire thread of messages. >> >> The points I made were that: >> a) accreditation tests should be automated, not done by humans tapping a >> keyboard and clicking a mouse each and every time a test needs to be >> repeated (for a new version of the software etc) ; >> b) there should be no monopoly on who creates the test scripts; >> c) the testing authority merely verifies the correctness of the test scripts >> and runs them to perform the test - or, much better, it trusts a signed >> statement from accredited independent testing agencies (so that there is a >> competitive market for their services and no govt-created monopoly). >> >> The main point is that application developers should be able to do the leg >> work of creating test scripts to demonstrate compliance of their products >> themselves, since this is were a lot of the costs lie. Of course, the first >> step is to create a comprehensive set of test specs, and to publish these. >> > You've been hanging around Extreme Programmers too long, Tim. :-)
Yeah, I have drunk the Kool-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid). > It sounds fantastic to me though. How would it work in practice. Don't know, but better than handing over tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to a govt-decreed testing monopoly, each and every time a medical software application needed to be accredited or re-accredited. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
