20080915 Working Group Meeting, Vancouver

Return to Domain Experts Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Domain Experts Steering Division

Attendance

• Martin Hurrell Ansth
• Terri Monk Ansth
• Suzanne Gonzales Webb CBCC
• Pele Yu Child Health WG
• Crystal Kallem CIC
• Jim Case DESD
• Melvin Reynolds DEV
• Tood Cooper DEV
• Jim McClay EC
• Laura Heermann Langford EC
• Nancy Orvis Govt Proj SIG
• Fred Behlen II
• Helmut Koenig II
• Austin Kreisler Lab
• Rob Hausam Lab
• William Goossen PC
• Garry Cruickshank Pharmacy
• Tom de Jong Pharmacy
• Alean Kirnak PHER
• Kristi Eckerson PHER
• Michelle Williamson PHER
• Lise Stevens PSSIG
• Ed Tripp RCRIM
• Edward Helton RCRIM
• John Speakman RCRIM
• Randy Levin RCRIM

Minutes

1. Role Call
   • Quorum was met for the meeting
2. Review agenda
   • Additional items were added to new business
3. Announcements
   • New co-chair election – Austin Kreisler new primary co-chair; Ed Tripp is Alternate
4. Approval of minutes from previous meetings
   • 7/23/2008 Conference Call – unanimously approved
   • 5/5/2008 Phoenix WGM - unanimously approved
5. Mission & Charter updates
   • CBCC
     • Resolve comments from PHER WG: Comment by Kristi Eckerson. (Friday, August 29, 2008 10:15:59 PM CEST) PHER approves existing content but requests one addition. We would like to see overt acknowledgment of a formal relationship between PHER and CBCC, recognizing the inter-relationship of our scopes of interest.
     • Discussion – CBCC acknowledged this relationship and will add it to the Mission and Charter
       • Vote to approve M&C – 25 for, 0 against, 0 abstain
   • Pediatric Data Standards (with name change to Child Health)
     • Reference to the M&C needed
     • Discussion – only significant change in the M&C is replacing pediatric to child health. Also makes changes from SIG to workgroup as requested by the TSC. It was suggested that the formal relationships be removed as there are no formal relationships established with outside agencies. This was accepted by the WG as a friendly amendment.
     • Vote to approve - 24 for, 0 against, 0 abstain
6. Decision making practices review
   • Quorum discussion – Should DESD co-chairs be given a vote?
     • Discussion – The SD is only sporadically able to achieve quorum on conference calls, but the current DMP document does not allow co-chairs to vote or count as part of quorum. There was a question as to whether a co-chair who is also a committee chair gets two votes. Current practice is that the alternate for that committee may vote in that instance. The current quorum requirement is 9 WGs represented, without the co-chair. This discussion also affects the email vote quorum rule as currently written.
     • Regarding quorum – Motion: The presiding SD co-chair be counted for the purposes of achieving quorum. The SD co-chair may only be counted once (either SD co-chair or as WG co-chair). Case/Tripp 25 for, 0 against, 0 abstain
     • Regarding Steering Division voting – Motion: In the case of a tie, the presiding co-chair may cast the tie-breaking vote. Tripp/Eckerson Vote: 25 for, 0 against, 0 abstain
     • Adjustment to the decision making practices will be made on the Wiki
   • Criteria for Work Groups in good standing.
     • Deferred until workgroup health discussion
7. Report on ARB activities – Nancy Orvis
   • Summary of the ArB work to date and the proposal for an enterprise architecture. The work over the last three months has been both collaborative in nature and international in scope. The SAEAF (Service aware enterprise architecture framework) is the initial proposal to get all of the HL7 artifacts into an architecture to be able to draw relatedness amongst them. Also would like to incorporate a dynamic or behavioral model in which this architecture operates. A full report is near completion and will be distributed to the co-chairs. This is also intended to help communicate HL7 architectural strategies to the HSSP. Nancy outlined some of the potential impacts of this movement on the existing WG structure and the opportunity to realign the organization to better utilize the limited resources that will be necessary to manage the implementation of an enterprise architecture.
   • The SD was reminded that all of the ArB discussions and draft documents are available on the ArB Wiki.
8. RIM Vocabulary updates (Austin)
   • This was mentioned in the co-chair meeting that a contract has been awarded to update the RIM with all of the delinquent vocabulary submissions that will bring it up to date as of August. There is no long term fix for this until new vocabulary tooling has been developed so it has been recommended that this type of contractual agreement be continued until the long term fix is completed.
9. Steering Division ballot quality initiative (Austin)
   • The issue is that a number of ballots that have gone out that do not fulfill the minimal quality required for a complete ballot. There is a new tool that will provide a high level quality assessment. It is currently a report that is published as part of the ballot. Austin proposed that a sub-group be appointed to review ballot quality for all of the domains covered by the SD. The role would be to do ballot preview review in order to provide higher quality ballot material for the actual ballot. This would involve spending time during ballot preview period to review the entire SD content. It was requested that Austin provide an overview of the specific responsibilities of the members of this subgroup. It does not have to be co-chairs, but should come from all of the WGs that have submitted ballot material. There was discussion on the current issues around getting time to review ballot material as it currently exists. Many WGs are small and already stretched for resources.
10. Member Committee Activity Discussion
    • Discussion revolved around the table that was shared with the SD. A number of co-chairs have contacted the SD co-chairs mentioning that their work has been continuing but has not been posting their activities on the HL7 visible sites. A discussion about the most important of these activities lead to the information that a number of WGs are posting minutes in other places. The difficulty is that there are a lot of issues about where these things are posted. There are multiple links to multiple sites (multiple wikis and web sites) for each WG. There needs to be some decisions on where WG material needs to be posted.
11. Work Group SWOT – Case emphasized the importance and use of these in the HL7 roadmap effort.
12. Work Group 1-3 year roadmap - Case emphasized the importance and use of these in the HL7 roadmap effort.
13. New Business
    • Project scope statements for approval
      • Lab WG – project to capture CMETS that are being redistributed to the domain committees. Question; will there be a target date for these to be reballoted? A:That has yet to be decided. The status of each CMET will also be revisited. A target date for reballoting was added for January 2009.
      • Vote: 24 for, 0 against, 0 abstain
      • CIC – Cardiology Acute coronary syndrome DAM, release 2; The project is supported by a number of agencies outside HL7. Plan is to have the DAM balloted by 2010. Question on the use of the term Analyses vs. analysis in the title. This needs to be clarified prior to coming to a vote. Will contact the project facilitator for clarification.