Data+Provenance+Use+Case+Consensus

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="DP header" include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_dashboard_begin"

The Data Provenance Use Case achieved consensus on October 16, 2014.
The Consented Use Case document (final and with track changes) and consensus votes/dispositions are below:
 * [[file:DPROV Use Case _ Final Consented Use Case_10.16.2014.pdf|Data Provenance Final Consented Use Case]]
 * [[file:DPROV Use Case _ Consented Use Case with Track Changes_10.16.2014.doc|Data Provenance Use Case (with track changes)]]
 * [[file:Data Provenance Use Case Voting Form (Responses) Consensus Voting.pdf|Data Provenance Use Case Votes and Dispositions]]

Instructions on the Consensus process can be found below; after you have reviewed the final Use Case document, you can begin casting your vote. If you would like to add any additional comments to your ballot, remember to provide actionable comments where applicable/necessary. **Note:** Only "one" vote per committed organization will be counted; please make sure to reconcile your votes with your colleagues.

Only Committed Members will be able to cast a vote. If you have and questions about your commitment level, please contact Jamie Parker (jamie.parker@esacinc.com) or Apurva Dharia (apurva.dharia@esacinc.com). =Consensus Process= The goal is unanimous consent, which is obtained by carefully considering and addressing significant input from the Community of Interest. Where unanimity is not possible, a group SHOULD strive to make consensus decisions where there is significant support and few abstentions. Each Initiative Member will provide one of the following votes during the Consensus process:
 * **Yes**
 * A Yes vote does not necessarily mean that the deliverable is the ideal one from the perspective of the Initiative Member, but that it is better to move forward then block the deliverable


 * ** Yes with comments **
 * If a consensus process attracts significant comments (through Yes with comment votes), it is expected that the comments will be addressed in a future revision of the deliverable.


 * **Formal Objection -** with comments indicating that a path to address the objection in a way that means the known concerns of other members of the Community of Interest. "Formal Objection" vote without such comments will be considered Abstain votes.
 * A Formal Objection means that the objector cannot proceed with the project unless the objections are met. It is acceptable and expected to use a Formal Objection in a first consensus round to communicate a point of view or process issue that has not been addressed in the drafting of the initial deliverable.
 * Should a Consensus Process attract even one "Formal Objection" vote with comments from an Initiative Member, the deliverable must be revised to address the "Formal Objection" vote (unless an exceptional process is declared)


 * **Abstain** (decline to vote)
 * Note: If you have comments on multiple sections please submit a new entry for each comment. Only one vote will be counted per committed organization and each comment from members of a single organization much contain the same type of vote.**
 * **E.g. - If one member of ACME Corp. votes "Yes (with comment)" another member from ACME Corp. cannot vote "Object (with comment)." In such cases votes will be considered an "Abstain" vote. Alternatively, if one member of ACME Corp. votes "Objection (with comment)" on one section of the document but has the comments regarding another section of the document, they are welcome provide additional comments but their vote for the new comment must still be "Objection (with comment)."**

media type="custom" key="26794458"


 * **Organization** || **Use Case Consensus Vote** ||
 * AHIMA ||  ||
 * Business Strategix Inc ||  ||
 * Case Western Reserve University || Yes (with comments) ||
 * CentriHealth || Formal Objection (with comments) ||
 * COO ||  ||
 * DB Consulting Group ||  ||
 * DCRI ||  ||
 * VA || Yes ||
 * EnableCare, LLC ||  ||
 * GE Healthcare ||  ||
 * GeneticMe ||  ||
 * HIPAAT International || Yes (with comments) ||
 * Independent ||  ||
 * Independent ||  ||
 * Independent ||  ||
 * Independent ||  ||
 * Independent || Yes (with comments) ||
 * Independent || Yes ||
 * Independent / CAP-DIHIT ||  ||
 * IntePro Solutions Inc || Yes ||
 * LOTS || Yes (with comments) ||
 * Medox Exchange ||  ||
 * NextGen HealthCare ||  ||
 * Ontology Research Group ||  ||
 * Oregon ||  ||
 * Quest Diagnostics ||  ||
 * SAMHSA ||  ||
 * SHAPE HITECH, LLC || Yes ||
 * State of Alaska ||  ||
 * Trustworthy EHR,LLC ||  ||
 * Voting Breakdown ||  ||
 * Committed Organizations || 30 ||
 * Total Yes Votes || 4 ||
 * Total Yes with Comment || 4 ||
 * Total Formal Objection || 1 ||
 * Total Votes || 9 ||
 * Percent Vote || 30% ||
 * Total Votes || 9 ||
 * Percent Vote || 30% ||

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="DP Contacts"

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_end"