2017-05-10 TSC WGM Agenda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TSC Wednesday meeting for Madrid WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes
| HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Borox |
Date: 2017-05-10 Time: 1:30 pm | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation |
| x | Calvin Beebe | HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair |
| ? | Woody Beeler | TSC Member Emeritus |
| x | Giorgio Cangioli | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| x | Lorraine Constable | HL7 ARB Co-Chair |
| x | Jean Duteau | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| Regrets | Freida Hall | Adhoc Member - GOM Expert |
| Regrets | Russ Hamm | HL7 FTSD Co-chair |
| ? | Stan Huff | HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote) |
| ? | Chuck Jaffe | HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote) |
| ? | Tony Julian | HL7 ARB Co-Chair |
| x | Paul Knapp | HL7 FTSD Co-Chair |
| x | Austin Kreisler | SSD-SD Co-chair |
| x | Wayne Kubick | HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote) |
| x | Ken McCaslin | TSC Chair |
| x | Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) | HL7 HQ |
| x | Melva Peters | HL7 DESD Co-Chair |
| x | John Roberts | HL7 DESD Co-chair |
| Regrets | Andy Stechishin | HL7 T3SD Co-Chair |
| ? | Sandra Stuart | HL7 T3SD Co-Chair |
| ? | Pat Van Dyke | HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote) |
| Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No) | ||
Wednesday lunch
- Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
- Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
- Domain Experts - Melva/John
- Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
- Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
- Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
- EST/Tooling
- ARB/BAM
- Product family addition to support CIMI
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
- Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
- Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
- Domain Experts - Melva/John
- Went well in Domain Experts. A few comments about the timing of the due dates. Need to follow up with email to cochairs saying this is what we expect. Lots of good questions and comments. Will create a Google doc for comments. Pharmacy went through M&C exercise this morning – discussion over boilerplate on SAIF. John notes DESD meeting revealed some other questions that could be asked regarding why do we have steering divisions/why aren’t certain WGs part of others or part of DESD. Suggested dividing into clinical and administrative. People were surprisingly open to the discussion. Templates for what M&Cs should look like would be welcome.
- ACTION: Look at M&C and get it back out for review.
- ACTION: Email cochairs to remind them of tasks/dates
- Went well in Domain Experts. A few comments about the timing of the due dates. Need to follow up with email to cochairs saying this is what we expect. Lots of good questions and comments. Will create a Google doc for comments. Pharmacy went through M&C exercise this morning – discussion over boilerplate on SAIF. John notes DESD meeting revealed some other questions that could be asked regarding why do we have steering divisions/why aren’t certain WGs part of others or part of DESD. Suggested dividing into clinical and administrative. People were surprisingly open to the discussion. Templates for what M&Cs should look like would be welcome.
- Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
- FTSD suggested everybody is a domain expert. Feeling was that our groups were named based on who came together rather than what they did. Should be looking at a more business/client facing perspective. Business client for SSD is actually Domain Experts. There was upset about creating Interest Groups, especially with limited functions; by the end of the meeting, they were more receptive to the idea, as long as there was a clearly defined progression for evolving into a WG. Other thing raised is that there are two different types of problems with outsiders coming in; we are addressing “where do I go?” but it doesn’t address/solve “how do I accomplish what I came here to do.” Would perhaps be helpful to have diagrams providing guidance. Calvin: Concern that each of the clinical topics are going to span the product families. Paul: If we don’t create WGs that have an expertise in an area, then what we do is create all of those WG functions within every WG and we won’t have consistency. Lorraine: That’s one of the functions of the review we’re doing at SD to make sure WGs aren’t doing the same work. Not that concerned about cross-family work. The issue is the reviews and checks/balances to make sure the correct people are interacting. Melva has more of a concern where groups go off and create clinical content without consulting and then wonder why they can’t do what they aimed to do. Austin: Product families are an attempt to deal with that particular issue. Management group has the authority to manage who does what. Wayne: I hear a lot of people use the word committee instead of WG. Why do we not use that instead of WG? Discussion of historical/cultural reason for that (lore and legacy). Paul states that generically, all groups within the organization are committees. Wayne notes that the ambiguity can create confusion. Wayne: We need a way to categorize new topics coming in – there is conversation about a new oncology group. Austin: We need some kind of form to help categorize. Paul: WGs should list out the WGs they’re related to and how to identify any overlaps.
- ACTION: Paul to articulate that idea for Ken’s email.
- ACTION: Calvin/Austin will work on pulling out WG relationships and making a mapping for September meeting. Paul suggests a functional chart instead of an org chart. Calvin: Each of the WGs could be listed and a weighting of the relationships between them.
- Discussion over HSI being distressed over not being able to do projects. They were advised that they can petition to move steering divisions. Lorraine: The co-chairs agreed to their current scope when they formed.
- FTSD suggested everybody is a domain expert. Feeling was that our groups were named based on who came together rather than what they did. Should be looking at a more business/client facing perspective. Business client for SSD is actually Domain Experts. There was upset about creating Interest Groups, especially with limited functions; by the end of the meeting, they were more receptive to the idea, as long as there was a clearly defined progression for evolving into a WG. Other thing raised is that there are two different types of problems with outsiders coming in; we are addressing “where do I go?” but it doesn’t address/solve “how do I accomplish what I came here to do.” Would perhaps be helpful to have diagrams providing guidance. Calvin: Concern that each of the clinical topics are going to span the product families. Paul: If we don’t create WGs that have an expertise in an area, then what we do is create all of those WG functions within every WG and we won’t have consistency. Lorraine: That’s one of the functions of the review we’re doing at SD to make sure WGs aren’t doing the same work. Not that concerned about cross-family work. The issue is the reviews and checks/balances to make sure the correct people are interacting. Melva has more of a concern where groups go off and create clinical content without consulting and then wonder why they can’t do what they aimed to do. Austin: Product families are an attempt to deal with that particular issue. Management group has the authority to manage who does what. Wayne: I hear a lot of people use the word committee instead of WG. Why do we not use that instead of WG? Discussion of historical/cultural reason for that (lore and legacy). Paul states that generically, all groups within the organization are committees. Wayne notes that the ambiguity can create confusion. Wayne: We need a way to categorize new topics coming in – there is conversation about a new oncology group. Austin: We need some kind of form to help categorize. Paul: WGs should list out the WGs they’re related to and how to identify any overlaps.
- Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
- Did actually settle on a proposed new name: Domain Foundations. Made some minor tweaks to M&C.
- Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
- Meeting consisted of Sandy, Dave, and Melissa from Education. Their calls have better turnout, so Sandy will broach the topic on the first call. Discussion over whether or not they are a true steering division – they are really a functional group. Lorraine: It depends on how you define steering. May have to think about them the same way we think about user groups.
- Domain Experts - Melva/John
- EST/Tooling
- ACTION: Add to next agenda
- ARB/BAM
- ACTION: Add to next agenda
- Product family addition to support CIMI
- ACTION: Anne to forward CIMI newsletter to TSC.
- ACTION: Add to next agenda
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests – Calvin
- Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
- Jean announces that he will also run for TSC chair with Ken and Austin.
- Discussion on voting procedure. GOC is going to make a draft decision that TSC will review. Jean states that Lynn notes that it was specifically vague when written. Question is over formal vs. informal vote – last time we did it as formal (one vote per steering division) or informal where each member gets a vote. Discussion over whether the vote for TSC chair is a formal vote or informal vote. Formal vote requires a motion. Could do an informal poll of the TSC that is then confirmed by a formal motion/vote for the preferred candidate that is revealed by the informal poll.
- ACTION: Anne to add announcement that nominations are open on next TSC call.
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
