WG6 Tcon12 Meeting minutes 10092012
Tcon 12, PhUSE Standards Roadmap Group. October 9, 2012
Attendance: Sarah, Anisa, Gitte, Rick, Bob
Action Item Wrap-up: Tcon 11 minutes posted, E-paper sections are on Wiki Discussion Tab, Gitte’s 4-5 sentence blurb completed. In a last call for edits, no members indicated that further edits were necessary
Launch Prioritization form
The group discussed final moves to launch the form. The following issues were resolved:
-Currently, we envision the 4 sentence blurb (invitation to complete the survey) in an email that will have a link which directs them to our Wiki.
- The group must prepare the Wiki for user-friendly access. The front of our Wiki will have a simple greeting at the top of the page with a link that opens the survey form.
A.I. Bob and Rick will figure out the posting of the form to the Wiki and pilot the form through submission to the Phuse email address (which cc’s Gitte’s email address)
-The group discussed that the survey/pdf form has the extended intro text prior to the survey. We agreed that the extended text would be put at the end of the document with a brief mention of that text in the Directions that are currently at the top of the survey form.
-Group agreed that November 30th is the new deadline for respondants.
A.I. Bob will update the form to reflect the new deadline.
Contact Tim, Lilliam, Lou Ann with the form for distribution.
A.I. Bob will contact them once we have the Survey posted on the Wiki.
It was discussed that each member should think about how they will represent their company's or Agency's perspective on the current form
- Though the e-Paper is currently on Wiki Discussion Tab, the group agreed to work offline in Word documents with Tracked Changes and cc’s to everyone when a section has updated content.
A.I. Bob will post the skeletal topics for the e-paper into a Word document and distribute to all members. They should place it on their desktop, and begin populating content.
- Some members began volunteering for sections to populate pieces with text or content, -Bob will undertake content regarding FDA policy on Data Standards, -Gitte volunteered to contribute content about considerations for implementation, and links for further reference. - In a previous discussion, it is believed that Debra may have volunteered for adding content to Questions #1 and #2 in “Questions to Consider” section
- Discussion on how to represent the Roadmap. Some ideas were discussed including: graphical and chronological/ Section to discuss elements outside of study types / tabular with % of responses as high, med, low for any study type.
- During the discussion it was felt that we may need to see the nature of the data that we obtain from the survey before deciding on a visual representation.
- Still, the group discussed that a prioritized list of study types could be one representation, and further agreed that assigning actual “dates for completion” to such a list was not reasonable for this group.
- It was also discussed that Study Types may very well belong on a different priority list than Study Elements. The Study Elements may serve as “threads” which several study types may use in order to improve access to each Study Type.
Last revision by Dorsamr,10/12/2012