Hi Diego,
1. By invite only: I just learned yesterday of this 'editor' figure (I
thought all people were just reviewers). At this moment I don't really
know quite well which are they roles or who they are. Is there a way
to know who are the editors of an archetype? Editors must be
nominated, proposed or approved by other editors? (this is only a
hunch by reading the other replies)
{IAN] The editors responsible for any Archetype review are very
clearly identified in CKM.
See http://openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showArchetype_1013.1.484 and
press Team.
2. Closed to outside participation or comment: I think this is not
intended, but currently relevant people could be left out just for not
knowing it. If only editors can nominate editors it will end being too
'endogamic'. If you don't want someone you disagree with to be part
of the archetype discussion you can potentially do that (if you don't
tell him he can be just unaware of this). You have to believe in the
good faith of the editors (and as seen on committee editing process,
this may not be the case).
[IAN] You will see from the example above or many of the NEHTA
examples that we do invite other people with special interest or
expertise to jointly edit many archetypes. In due course, with the
right resource and training, many of these people would become primary
editors.
We do try to get as an inclusive an audience as we can into archetype
reviews, balancing this against unwelcome 'spamming'. Sebastian can
detail the very many ways that CKM communicates new archetypes and new
archetype reviews to as wide an audience as possible, including
Twitter, RSS, emails etc etc.
Other suggestions would be very welcome.
As part of the review process we ask people to suggest others who
might become involved, and others are invited as a result.
Of course, in any governed space (and a CKM has ultimately to be
governed), one relies on the good faith of the editors, but that in
turn needs oversight and governance from the Foundation, so that if
these editors are felt to be acting inappropriately, action can be
taken. The relationship between the Foundation and the CKM Editorial
team will be part of the new Board discussions.
3. Physical meeting based, requiring significant resource: I give you
this one 
although this is something that official bodies could
improve easily
4. May be backed up by private email conversations: so can this (?)
[IAN] By this I meant that private email was very much part of the
normal business of standards development, not on any sense of 'deals
being done behind closed doors', although this of course can take
place. It is however closed to a wider audience who might want to
participate.
We do also sometimes communicate with reviewers privately, but only in
specific circumstances where such a private conversation is necessary
because the person involved does not want to derail the review process
with 'out of scope' concerns or has personal, commercial or
organisational reasons for not wanting to discuss this publicly. This
is very rare and we would always try to take any important and
relevant concerns back to the wider community in a de-identifiable
fashion. It is not part of the 'normal business' of a CKM review but
is part of the real-world experience of managing this kind of
activity.
I think we need to be careful to separate issues that arise from a
flaws in the CKM approach (there are some and we will identify more
with experience), from those which arise from not being able to fund
or resource this properly, including building up and training a bigger
editorial team, and the oversight of that team.
In Formula 1 terms, don't attack the car designer if it runs out of petrol
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics.com
Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org
