2016-11-07 TSC Call Agenda
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: 2016-11-07 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 | ||||
| x | Ken McCaslin | x | Tony Julian | . | Jean Duteau | x | Austin Kreisler |
| x | Wayne Kubick | Regrets | Lorraine Constable | x | Giorgio Cangioli | x | Freida Hall, GOM Expert |
| . | . | . | . | Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus | |||
| Domain Experts | Foundation and Technology | Structure and Semantic Design | Technical and Support Services | ||||
| x | Melva Peters | Regrets | Russ Hamm | x | Calvin Beebe | x | Andy Stechishin |
| x | John Roberts | x | Paul Knapp | x | Gora Datta | Regrets | Sandra Stuart |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| ex officio | Invited Guests | Observers | HL7 Staff | ||||
| . | Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote | . | . | obs1 | x | Anne Wizauer | |
| . | Chuck Jaffe (CEO) |
. | . | . | obs2 | . |
|
| . | . | . | . | . | |||
Agenda
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Agenda review and approval -
- Approve Minutes of 2016-10-31 TSC Call Agenda
- FHIR ballot status update
- Review action items –
- John Roberts waiting for WG clarity on the issues with Project Approval Request by the Patient Care WG of the DESD of Definition of Negation Requirements for Standards at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 12197 – white paper, SAIF conceptual model, or informative document?
- John has provided an updated document for approval
- All to review updated publication request document (updates to unballoted stu update section, plus added page numbers and revision date in footer)
- John Roberts waiting for WG clarity on the issues with Project Approval Request by the Patient Care WG of the DESD of Definition of Negation Requirements for Standards at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 12197 – white paper, SAIF conceptual model, or informative document?
- Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 7/0/0 with T3SD, Jean, Freida, DESD, Giorgio, Austin, and Wayne voting:
- Normative Publication Request by the CBCC WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Privacy Consent Directives, Release 1 at Project Insight 553 and TSC Tracker 12313
- Note: All previous negatives were withdrawn
- Normative Publication Request by the CBCC WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Privacy Consent Directives, Release 1 at Project Insight 553 and TSC Tracker 12313
- Approval items for this week:
- Project Approval Request by the OO WG of the SSD-SD for Laboratory Results Interface Implementation Guide at Project Insight 1294 and TSC Tracker 12327
- Project Approval Request by the OO WG of the SSD-SD of Specimen DAM Update at Project Insight 1292 and TSC Tracker 12328
- Review and approval of Document Cover Page Template by the Project Services WG of the T3SD at TSC Tracker 12329
- Review of 2017Jan Ballot Items at TSC Tracker 12330
- Discussion topics:
- Initial report from SGB and ARB on addressing the issue of separation of concerns
- Request from eye care professionals for new WG or integration with current WG
- Report from Paul, Calvin, Melva on requirements for logging issues/comments across standards
- Continue TSC SWOT Review
- Revisit PSS for "Revise Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications"
- TSC reviewed/did not approve because of the following concerns: 1) lack of project facilitator; 2) no co-sponsor approvals. Ken will talk to Dave about being the facilitator. Andy will coordinate with publishing and PIC regarding cosponsoring. ARB will add to their agenda as well.
- Original issue was CCOW but once that was resolved the issue lost steam
- Identifying and communicating essential rules (Wayne)
- Open Issues List
- Multi-Year Planning Items
Minutes
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- No visitors
- Agenda review and approval -
- Approved
- Approve Minutes of 2016-10-31 TSC Call Agenda
- Approved via general consent
- FHIR ballot status update
- Missing tracker items were discovered
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Review action items –
- John Roberts waiting for WG clarity on the issues with Project Approval Request by the Patient Care WG of the DESD of Definition of Negation Requirements for Standards at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 12197 – white paper, SAIF conceptual model, or informative document?
- John has provided an updated document for approval
- MOTION to approve: John/Gora
- Discussion: Gora notes that some of the work was done in the past. Discussion over giving the WG guidance on this. Group notes that this is pretty standard. Gora says it's going on in his WG - should we send a message to all WGs regarding this? Becomes an issue if TSC decides a project is inappropriate and then a lot of work has already been done. John notes that it's also a problem if appropriate WGs are not included from the start.
- VOTE: All in favor
- Continued discussion: Concern that we have a process to get a PSS approved, but we're not encouraging them to get the PSS approved before you get too deep into working on the project. Wayne: Maybe we need some kind of preliminary triage, like a proposal step before we go too deep into the work. Paul: We have that with the PSS-lite, although people aren't widely using it. Gora: We need a defined step called project registration so the intent is established and announced. Freida: If people are not understanding what we have right now, we might have trouble introducing another level and form. Wayne: The form is hard to read. It would help to move it online. Calvin: That would help. We need a new process that is not quite as onerous. Paul mentions using Project Insight. Wayne notes there might be licensing issues but we should look into it. Wayne has been testing this in Confluence. Ken: We would like to see the PSS online; have it more functional so if it's an investigative project.
- ACTION: Gora to outline a potential process for project announcement/registration. Andy notes that the cochairs list is the place where people are to announce projects, and in fact several were announced last week. Paul: Perhaps we remind at the cochair dinner that announcing on the list is the correct action. Two different use cases we need to address - when there's a new project and when people are looking for a WG to work on the project. Paul: So is the process to create a PSS-lighter? Wayne: We are looking for an adequate process to announce a project to the community. Gora invites others to participate. Paul offers to take a look at what Gora puts together. Melva offers to help as well.
- Continued discussion: Concern that we have a process to get a PSS approved, but we're not encouraging them to get the PSS approved before you get too deep into working on the project. Wayne: Maybe we need some kind of preliminary triage, like a proposal step before we go too deep into the work. Paul: We have that with the PSS-lite, although people aren't widely using it. Gora: We need a defined step called project registration so the intent is established and announced. Freida: If people are not understanding what we have right now, we might have trouble introducing another level and form. Wayne: The form is hard to read. It would help to move it online. Calvin: That would help. We need a new process that is not quite as onerous. Paul mentions using Project Insight. Wayne notes there might be licensing issues but we should look into it. Wayne has been testing this in Confluence. Ken: We would like to see the PSS online; have it more functional so if it's an investigative project.
- MOTION to approve: John/Gora
- John has provided an updated document for approval
- All to review updated publication request document (updates to unballoted stu update section, plus added page numbers and revision date in footer)
- John Roberts waiting for WG clarity on the issues with Project Approval Request by the Patient Care WG of the DESD of Definition of Negation Requirements for Standards at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 12197 – white paper, SAIF conceptual model, or informative document?
- Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 7/0/0 with T3SD, Jean, Freida, DESD, Giorgio, Austin, and Wayne voting:
- Normative Publication Request by the CBCC WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Privacy Consent Directives, Release 1 at Project Insight 553 and TSC Tracker 12313
- Note: All previous negatives were withdrawn
- Normative Publication Request by the CBCC WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Privacy Consent Directives, Release 1 at Project Insight 553 and TSC Tracker 12313
- Approval items for this week:
- Laboratory Results Interface Implementation Guide
- Specimen DAM Update
- Document Cover Page Template
- Discussion topics:
- Initial report from SGB and ARB on addressing the issue of separation of concerns
- Paul walks group through the document prepared by ARB and SGB. Ken mentions diagram presented by PLA and asks if it was hierarchical. Paul replies that no, it was flow. Wayne: The question is how well is it understood throughout the community - it's about communication, education, awareness. An example was conflicts people may have representing HL7 interests vs. client/employer interests. Paul: The intent is to protect all the parties. Sometimes we put too many hats on a person and they can't wear all those hats with equal quality; can't respond to all masters equally. Wayne: The action is how do we communicate/increase awareness of this?
- ACTION: Discuss how to communicate on next week's call. Paul asks for people to think about examples of where we see violations of the principle.
- Paul walks group through the document prepared by ARB and SGB. Ken mentions diagram presented by PLA and asks if it was hierarchical. Paul replies that no, it was flow. Wayne: The question is how well is it understood throughout the community - it's about communication, education, awareness. An example was conflicts people may have representing HL7 interests vs. client/employer interests. Paul: The intent is to protect all the parties. Sometimes we put too many hats on a person and they can't wear all those hats with equal quality; can't respond to all masters equally. Wayne: The action is how do we communicate/increase awareness of this?
- Request from eye care professionals for new WG or integration with current WG
- Dr. Boland came forward with a request for a new eye care WG. Rather than do that, we think we'd like to have them do work under another existing WG. Paul notes that FM has been doing the vision resources, so it's good there is someone interested in doing the work. Ken wonders about OO or Patient Care being an appropriate fit. Melva agrees those are logical choices. OO has a lot of cochairs and resources. Ken summarizes that we could start them there and perhaps split them out later. Wayne notes we should have a standard procedure to start new groups out with another WG, and also that we should resurrect user groups.
- ACTION: Ken will reach out to OO and Patient Care to see if they would be willing to host the WG
- Dr. Boland came forward with a request for a new eye care WG. Rather than do that, we think we'd like to have them do work under another existing WG. Paul notes that FM has been doing the vision resources, so it's good there is someone interested in doing the work. Ken wonders about OO or Patient Care being an appropriate fit. Melva agrees those are logical choices. OO has a lot of cochairs and resources. Ken summarizes that we could start them there and perhaps split them out later. Wayne notes we should have a standard procedure to start new groups out with another WG, and also that we should resurrect user groups.
- Initial report from SGB and ARB on addressing the issue of separation of concerns
- Adjourned at 12:02 Eastern time
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
