...
- creative thinking around locale specific issues; including
- keeping vision aligned with changing requirements, advances, paradigms etc.
- keeping an eye on local assets (e.g. training material, consistency etc.) making sure that the credit/value doesn't go to certain individuals or organisations but to the community. [TB: can this be stated better with some kind of rules of copyright / attribution?] [KA: I'll need help with this, I don't think we can get away with a single copyright attribution here but the principle is clear I think. We definitely need whole lot more on IP issues around Localised resources. I suggest we move on but acknowledge the difficulty. I've created a new Heading below with reference to a future Document]
- how to empower local users to get things done
- trying to find workarounds to address local pecularities due to language, culture etc. but fair enough not to compromise the Foundation's values, principles and more importantly its assets.
- managing Qualified Membership:
- setting the criteria for Qualified Membership
- reviewing nominations from existing QM or from the Foundation and deciding who can become QM
- maintaining an appropriate balance of individuals (e.g. academics, government workers, vendors etc. as well as in terms of technical, organisational and other desired skills) [TB: how would this be done? What are the criteria?] [KA: since this is not a fixed number group it is not appropriate to give a number or proportion for each. Also this is not a formal decision making group so probably there's no need for a strict rule. If we end up 90% vendor representation is this bad? Not at all in my opinion. I think we'll determine this along the way but the principle is clear]
- etc.
- leadership and support for Qualified Members:
- help with their local establishments (e.g. assist preparing their local TOR)
- resolving local/global IP issues
- publishing local content
- mediating local training strategies, material development and maintenance
- help with promotion strategies in local environments
- communication to the Foundation and the wider openEHR community of issues of interest; including [TB:suggest to treat comm. to Foundation and comm. with other communities separately - one is internal, one is external]** general interest
- communication to other Programs (Specification, Software, Clinical Models)
- communication to the Foundation of any local issues arising which needs Board's attention
- getting promotion support and material (e.g. endorsements, MoUs etc.)
- aligning local strategies and works with that of the Foundation
- advise of requirements and prioritisation of work or any other business
...
- the co-chairs will manage a more formal round of discussions which seek to expose the points of difference and disagreement;
- If this fails to result in consensus, the cochairs will facilitate an open community review of the issue with a fixed timeline;
- The results of the community review will be the basis of a further round of discussions within the LPC aimed at finding a consensus decision;
- If this still fails, a formal 2/3 majority vote will be taken, unless objections to this route are voiced from within the LPC.
Communications
With the Foundation
The Localisation Program needs to keep the Board up to date on its activities and emerging issues. There is a need for support from the Foundation and concerted action during promotion of openEHR locally (e.g. national programmes/governments usually sign Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the openEHR Foundation).
With other Programs
The Localisation Program needs to maintain communications with the other openEHR Programs on a fairly constant basis. Necessary communications include:
- Clinical Models Program: TBD
- Software Program: TBD
- Specification Program: TBD
With the wider openEHR Community
In order to keep the openEHR community at large informed about events in the Localisation Program, regular and visible communications is needed. These include the following:
...
Face to face meetings should be sought whenever and whereever possible (e.g. conferences).
IP Issues
It is acknowledged that this may be a 'hard' topic! While the copyright (of left) and licensing issues can be become quite complicated the rule of thumb is to provide maximum freedom in the use and dissemination of local openEHR resources while ensuring ownership and quality is retained.[KA: this can be as complicated as we want].
The details are discussed in this Page (TBD).
Evolution of these Terms of Reference
...