20071130 Conference Call Agenda

Return to Domain Experts Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Agenda and Minutes for Domain experts Steering Division conference call 20071130

November 30, 2007 10am -12pm ET Phone Number: 702-894-2444 Participant Passcode: 5874338 Moderator Passcode: 4273

Participants

• Jim Case - DESD Co-Chair
• Todd Cooper - Devices
• Jim McClay - EC
• Susan Matney - patCare
• Helmut Koenig - IIS
• Ed Helton - RCRIM
• Austin Kreisler - Lab
• Rob Hallowell - Pharm
• Mike Cassidy - Attach
• Nancy Orvis - GovProj
• Rita Altamore - PHER

Agenda

1. (10 min) Review of TSC decisions since last call
2. (15 min) Review of topics under discussion by TSC
   1. ARB reorganization
   2. Projects – what projects should be approved by a committee vs. the TSC?
      1. What are the criteria for making this decision?
3. (10 min) Using project insight to manage project progress
4. (10 min) Status of actions items from the last call
   1. review issues on GForge site- [1]
5. (10 min) Review of ISO/CEN/HL7 collaboration issue – Jim McCain
6. (10 min) SIG to TC Proposals
7. (10 min) Project Scope Statement review from RCRIM (Ed Helton)
8. Other Business

Minutes

Review Agenda

• No changes were suggested

Review of TSC decisions since last call

There are a number of issues being addressed by the TSC, but final decisions are dependent on the revision of the by-laws, development of a comprehensive enterprise architecture and resolution of a number of administrative issues that are being recorded on the TSC GForge site. Steering Division members are referred to the site for the status of these issues. One decision that has been made is to reorganize and redefine the ARB (see detailed comments below)

Review of topics under discussion by TSC

1. ARB reorganization
   1. The proposed reorganization of the ARB was discussed as well as the role of the DE representative on the ARB. The DESD ARB representative needs to be able to represent the functional architectural needs of the clinical domain committees in the context of using the standards in an implementation.
   2. Nancy Orvis has been working in this area for many years and would be interested in participating on the ARB. Others have been contacted who may also be interested.
   3. The committee co-chairs were asked to communicate with their committees and offer recommendations to the steering division co-chairs.
2. Projects – what projects should be approved by a committee vs. the TSC? Discussion on whether all projects need to be approved by the TSC. Since this determination has not been made, all projects should follow the current project approval process, which requires approval by the Steering Division, TSC and PMO.It would be important that all projects be critically reviewed by the committees prior to submission to the Steering Division and the TSC.All of this will be dependent on the finalization of the architecture, by-laws, strategic plan and products and services plans.Another request was made for a current project listing from all of the committees.
   1. What are the criteria for making this decision? The criteria that will be used are currently being developed. Stay tuned.

Using project insight to manage project progress

Post the URL to the Project insight web page and a link to the tutorial slides (if available)

Status of actions items from the last call

1. review issues on GForge site- [2] Call participants were directed to the GForge site to review the status of TSC issues that were on interest to them.

Review of ISO/CEN/HL7 collaboration issue – Jim McCain

Tabled as Jim was not on the call

SIG to TC Proposals

Committees that were interested in changing their status should continue to move forward with their proposals. Depending on the resolution of issue 325 on the TSC Gforge site, their proposals will be considered on merit. It was mentioned that many of the original issues surrounding differences between TCs and SIG have been dealt with in other forums (i.e. harmonization votes, space, etc.). Additional issues surrounding approval of ballot material still need to be addressed.

Project Scope Statement review from RCRIM (Ed Helton)

1. The discussion of the project proposal identified that the purpose is to both create a new standard that is based on the RIM to support CDISC-defined content. In addition, the project would include the development of an implementation guide to support future implementers.
2. There are adequate resources within and external to the RCRIM committee to support the project.
3. It was recommended that the project be shared with the OO and PA committees as artifacts under their stewardship would be used. Their review would be appropriate.
4. There should also be a review of any agreements between HL7 and CDISC to make sure that there is nothing in the proposal counter to those agreements
5. A copy of the new project scoping document will be sent to RCRIM to submit to the TSC and the PMO.
6. A question regarding the priority that RCRIM places on this project within this committee. Since the DESD does not have a handle on the number of projects that are ongoing within the DESD committees it is difficult to assign a priority. However, based on the current availability of resources and the willingness of RCRIM to move this forward it was recommended that the project be approved (Moved by Mike Cassidy, 2nd Rita Altamore) with the following amendment:
   1. Motion to accept to project contingent on the completion of the new scope statement document and inclusion of a dependency with the PA Committee in the dependency section. (Moved by Rita, 2nd Ed Helton)
7. Quorum was no longer achieved, advisory vote 7 for, 0 against, 0 abstain

Other Business

1. Next call on December 12
2. Next call January 9, 2008 10amET
3. Call adjourned at 1135ET