2017-04-10 TSC Call Agenda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TSC Agenda/Minutes
Meeting Info/Attendees
Standing Conference Calls
TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.
- GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
- For those without access to microphone/speakers:
- US: +1 (224)501-3318
- Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
- Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
- Access Code: 426-505-829
- GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
| HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829 |
Date: 2017-MM-DD Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented | yes/no | ||||||
| Chair/CTO | ArB | International Affiliate Rep | Ad-Hoc | ||||
| Regrets | Ken McCaslin | x | Tony Julian | . | Jean Duteau | . | Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus |
| x | Wayne Kubick | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Giorgio Cangioli | x | Freida Hall, GOM Expert |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| Domain Experts | Foundation and Technology | Structure and Semantic Design | Technical and Support Services | ||||
| . | Melva Peters | x | Russ Hamm | x | Calvin Beebe | x | Andy Stechishin |
| x | John Roberts | x | Paul Knapp | x | Austin Kreisler | x | Sandra Stuart |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| ex officio | Invited Guests | Observers | HL7 Staff | ||||
| . | Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote | x | Floyd Eisenberg | . | obs1 | x | Anne Wizauer |
| . | Chuck Jaffe (CEO) |
. | . | . | obs2 | . |
|
| . | . | . | . | . | |||
Agenda
- Housekeeping
- Can everyone access Google docs?
- No meeting on 2017-05-15
- Confirm quorum for 2017-05-22 (Canadian holiday) and 2017-05-29 (US holiday)
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Agenda review and approval -
- Review/Approve Minutes of 2017-04-03 TSC Call Agenda
- Review action items –
- Paul to take back concerns regarding Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) to CIMI WG
- Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
- Proposed Definition of Interest Group at TSC Tracker 12980
- Referred by T3SD: I have issues with the definition of interest groups. It fails to address my original concern around work group health. It suggests balloting DAMs (which can be normative) but prohibits doing normative standards. I believe this item needs more thought and work prior to being submitted for approval.
- Referred by Austin: Submitted document with suggested edits
- STU Publication Request by the ITS WG of the FTSD for HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: FHIRPath at Project Insight 1237 and TSC Tracker 13165
- Referred by Freida: This was balloted under different title (HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: Neutral Mapping Notation, Release 1 (1st STU Ballot)) ; confirm TSC concurs with new title and omission of (optional) Release #
- Referred by Austin:: Reconciliation spreadsheet assigns improper dispositions to negative votes. For instance several negatives given the disposition “Considered - Question Answered”
- Normative Publication Request by the CQI WG of the DESD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Representation of the Health Quality Measures Format (eMeasure) at Project Insight 508 and TSC Tracker 13163
- Referred by Austin: Has this been through a Recirculation ballot? There are 8 outstanding Negative votes on a Normative ballot. Although the reconciliation spreadsheet is posted, there is no evidence the ballot pool has been contacted.
- Referred by Freida: Verified on Ballot Desktop all negative votes have been withdrawn, so ballot vote count in publication request out of date, otherwise would need re-circulation ballot if standing negative votes. Pub request indicates yes for “Substantive Changes Since Last Ballot?” If substantive changes in Normative ballot, per HL7 ER, must re-ballot the content.
- Comment from DESD: In the common name/search keyword section: is “eMeasure” a common name?
- Proposed Definition of Interest Group at TSC Tracker 12980
- Approval items from last week's e-vote:
- Project Approval Request by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Virtual C-CDA Implementation-A-Thon (IAT) at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 13164
- Approval items for this week:
- Project Approval Request by the ARB for Substantive Change Definition and Documentation at Project Insight 1259 and TSC Tracker 9799
- Discussion topics:
- Motion from US Realm that they prefer to designate a member sitting on both TSC and US Realm to take on role of approving documents for publication from a US Realm perspective
- FHIR Ballot Level Issues - Paul
- FHIR publication naming - Wayne
- Evaluating STU publication time periods - Wayne
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
- Publication Request Review Timelines
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publication request can be granted - Tony
- Recommendation from SGB regarding process changes which affect standards development - Paul
- Note: SGB does not see a need for changes to the Project Services "Introducing New Processes" document
- Open Issues List/Parking Lot
- SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
- Ken to address STU extensions at the co-chair dinner
- Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process
Minutes
- Housekeeping
- Can everyone access Google docs?
- May use Google docs to share spreadsheet on WG changes. No one reports issues accessing.
- No meeting on 2017-05-15
- This is the usual Monday after the WG cancellation
- Confirm quorum for 2017-05-22 (Canadian holiday) and 2017-05-29 (US holiday)
- May have challenge for quorum 4/17. Decision to cancel 5/29. 5/22 is tentative.
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Floyd Eisenberg here to talk about eMeasure.
- Agenda review and approval -
- Review/Approve Minutes of 2017-04-03 TSC Call Agenda
- Minutes accepted via general consent.
- Can everyone access Google docs?
- Review action items –
- Paul to take back concerns regarding Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) to CIMI WG
- Paul went back to CIMI and they are working on it.
- Paul to take back concerns regarding Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) to CIMI WG
- Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
- Proposed Definition of Interest Group at TSC Tracker 12980
- Referred by T3SD: I have issues with the definition of interest groups. It fails to address my original concern around work group health. It suggests balloting DAMs (which can be normative) but prohibits doing normative standards. I believe this item needs more thought and work prior to being submitted for approval.
- Referred by Austin: Submitted document with suggested edits
- Wayne notes that he wasn't under the impression that interest groups would publish anything normative, even DAMs. Andy: We should add ability to only do non-normative DAMS to the definition. No STUs either. They would likely ballot things only for comment. Lorraine: One problem is comment ballots don't get published - you'd be talking about informative. DAMs are used in more than one context - there are domain analysis models intended as the base of future artifacts that are either normative of STU to normative. Then there are the kinds of things that people are calling DAMS that are lists of requirements and core data sets. The first kind should come only from WGs. AID publishes white paper and recommendations as informative documents and they should continue to be able to do that. Wayne notes work will be more project based in the future; when a project/PSS comes up we could see if it makes sense to publish. Austin: It really comes down to if they need to manage process and ballot reconciliation, then they are behaving like a WG. If they're creating things for peer review and feeding into other WG's projects, then they can be an interest group. Group reviews definition. Calvin notes that the challenge is that we'll be bringing in specialty groups that want to do projects and ballot them, but then they have no skin in looking at the feedback or maintaining ownership of the capture of things that need to be revised in requirements. What makes them stay beyond the project? Then we have feedback and no one to progress it forward. We need WG to commit to long term support. Made edits to definition. Austin: If we're enabling them to manage projects then they need to be assigned to a steering division. Calvin notes that perhaps we could revise work group health metrics so they don't get dinged on balloting. Discussion over whether or not they would report to TSC or a separate steering division. John notes they could just be measured on project health instead of WG health.
- MOTION to approve revised definition: Calvin/John
- VOTE: All in favor
- Wayne notes that he wasn't under the impression that interest groups would publish anything normative, even DAMs. Andy: We should add ability to only do non-normative DAMS to the definition. No STUs either. They would likely ballot things only for comment. Lorraine: One problem is comment ballots don't get published - you'd be talking about informative. DAMs are used in more than one context - there are domain analysis models intended as the base of future artifacts that are either normative of STU to normative. Then there are the kinds of things that people are calling DAMS that are lists of requirements and core data sets. The first kind should come only from WGs. AID publishes white paper and recommendations as informative documents and they should continue to be able to do that. Wayne notes work will be more project based in the future; when a project/PSS comes up we could see if it makes sense to publish. Austin: It really comes down to if they need to manage process and ballot reconciliation, then they are behaving like a WG. If they're creating things for peer review and feeding into other WG's projects, then they can be an interest group. Group reviews definition. Calvin notes that the challenge is that we'll be bringing in specialty groups that want to do projects and ballot them, but then they have no skin in looking at the feedback or maintaining ownership of the capture of things that need to be revised in requirements. What makes them stay beyond the project? Then we have feedback and no one to progress it forward. We need WG to commit to long term support. Made edits to definition. Austin: If we're enabling them to manage projects then they need to be assigned to a steering division. Calvin notes that perhaps we could revise work group health metrics so they don't get dinged on balloting. Discussion over whether or not they would report to TSC or a separate steering division. John notes they could just be measured on project health instead of WG health.
- STU Publication Request by the ITS WG of the FTSD for HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: FHIRPath at Project Insight 1237 and TSC Tracker 13165
- Referred by Freida: This was balloted under different title (HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: Neutral Mapping Notation, Release 1 (1st STU Ballot)) ; confirm TSC concurs with new title and omission of (optional) Release
- Wayne reports that a request came forward to change the name because FluentPath already existed under a different copyright. Discussion over naming implications. Need a release number. Lynn should be involved in this discussion.
- MOTION to add Release 1 to name: Paul/Calvin
- Referred by Austin:: Reconciliation spreadsheet assigns improper dispositions to negative votes. For instance several negatives given the disposition “Considered - Question Answered”
- This is a common practice in many WGs but it is incorrect. SGB is looking at it generally.
- Paul withdraws his motion
- Decision to send back to WG for followup.
- Referred by Freida: This was balloted under different title (HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: Neutral Mapping Notation, Release 1 (1st STU Ballot)) ; confirm TSC concurs with new title and omission of (optional) Release
- Normative Publication Request by the CQI WG of the DESD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Representation of the Health Quality Measures Format (eMeasure) at Project Insight 508 and TSC Tracker 13163
- Referred by Austin: Has this been through a Recirculation ballot? There are 8 outstanding Negative votes on a Normative ballot. Although the reconciliation spreadsheet is posted, there is no evidence the ballot pool has been contacted.
- Austin withdraws the comment as he was looking at the wrong ballot.
- Referred by Freida: Verified on Ballot Desktop all negative votes have been withdrawn, so ballot vote count in publication request out of date, otherwise would need re-circulation ballot if standing negative votes. Pub request indicates yes for “Substantive Changes Since Last Ballot?” If substantive changes in Normative ballot, per HL7 ER, must re-ballot the content.
- All negatives are now withdrawn. Checkbox for substantive change was misunderstanding...change is substantive since STU 2.1. Resolution of the ballot did not substantively change what was put out for ballot.
- Comment from DESD: In the common name/search keyword section: is “eMeasure” a common name?
- Floyd reports that they now use the term eCQM but the original ballot was eMeasure. Floyd states they could leave that out. Could also put it in keyword search. eMeasure has been part of the name since the beginning. John Roberts notes that many people refer to it as eMeasure. Floyd notes that CMS no longer uses the term but that doesn't mean we need to add another acronym to add confusion. eMeasure will be in title and keywords.
- MOTION to approve: Austin/John
- VOTE: All in favor
- Floyd reports that they now use the term eCQM but the original ballot was eMeasure. Floyd states they could leave that out. Could also put it in keyword search. eMeasure has been part of the name since the beginning. John Roberts notes that many people refer to it as eMeasure. Floyd notes that CMS no longer uses the term but that doesn't mean we need to add another acronym to add confusion. eMeasure will be in title and keywords.
- Referred by Austin: Has this been through a Recirculation ballot? There are 8 outstanding Negative votes on a Normative ballot. Although the reconciliation spreadsheet is posted, there is no evidence the ballot pool has been contacted.
- Proposed Definition of Interest Group at TSC Tracker 12980
- Discussion topics:
- Motion from US Realm that they prefer to designate a member sitting on both TSC and US Realm to take on role of approving documents for publication from a US Realm perspective.
- MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Calvin
- Giorgio asks to clarify - how does US Realm compare to other realms? Does it mean that the other realms should have appointed members to TSC? Paul would say no because in other realms, the realm is playing the role of TSC as well as being the affiliate. Realms make their own approvals because they go through their own publication process. Giorgio: If it passes through the WG activity, it should be through the process of the steering division. Doesn't see why affiliate should have different process. Austin: Right now, US Realm is a work committee and is not an affiliate. Paul: Intention was not to put US Realm people on TSC, but rather streamline the process because of the existing overlap. This was so US Realm wouldn't have to separately approve. Discussion over why US Realm is approving anyway. Wayne states we should determine who the US realm representatives would be on TSC. Lorraine states we have already appointed those people.
- Motion withdrawn
- Issue tabled until next week.
- FHIR Ballot Level Issues - Paul
- Add for next week
- FHIR publication naming - Wayne
- Add for next week
- Evaluating STU publication time periods - Wayne
- Add for next week
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
- Add for next week
- Publication Request Review Timelines
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publication request can be granted - Tony
- Add for next week
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publication request can be granted - Tony
- Recommendation from SGB regarding process changes which affect standards development - Paul
- Note: SGB does not see a need for changes to the Project Services "Introducing New Processes" document
- Add for next week
- Note: SGB does not see a need for changes to the Project Services "Introducing New Processes" document
- Motion from US Realm that they prefer to designate a member sitting on both TSC and US Realm to take on role of approving documents for publication from a US Realm perspective.
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
