2009-03-09 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee 

Monday, March 09, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

  • Chair: Charlie McCay
  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Austin Kreisler (primary), Ed Tripp (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Ravi Natarajan
  • ARB: Charlie Mead (primary), John Koisch (alternate)
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck, Lynn Laakso

Invited

  • Charles Jaffe (CEO)
  • Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Bob Dolin (HL7 Vice Chair)
  • Marc Koehn (EA IP)
  • Chuck Meyer

Apologies

  • Calvin Beebe
  • John Quinn
  • Ed Tripp

Agenda

  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call: Woody Beeler, John Koisch, Austin Kreisler, Lynn Laakso, Brett Marquard (SD WG), Ken McCaslin, Charlie McCay, Chuck Meyer, Gregg Seppala, Ioana Singureanu, and Karen Van Hentenryck
    2. Accept Agenda - Koisch (with bad connection) to go first with ArB report, then SSD SD. Agenda accepted
  2. ArB Report – ArB going through the documents for the slide decks. SAEAF slide decks are tightly bound. Can start giving feedback on the Powerpoints on GForge, where the new documents are available. Timeline: BF deck this week, SAEAF documents start appearing next week. Contents are same as slide decks. Charlie McCay looking forward to the fleshing out of the document from the Conformance deck he’s been reviewing. John Koisch says they’ll definitely be out by Kyoto, but you can start putting out comments already. Woody observes the documents on the GForge site are under the Files tab, not under Docs.
  3. Structure & Semantic Design –
    • Request for Publication of DSTU: CDA R2 HAI [1] Tracker #919 Tabled from 2009-03-02, unanimously approved
    • Request for Publication of DSTU: CDA DIR IG [2] Tracker #969 unanimously approved
    • Request for Publication of DSTU: Op Note (CDA R2 OPNOTE R1 D2) IG [3] Tracker #975 unanimously approved
    • Brett Marquard left the call after this business item.
  4. Admin continued:
    1. Approve Minutes from 2009-03-02_TSC_Call_Minutes – unanimously approved
    2. Review action items –
      • process for appealing ballot process (opening ballot pools, being added to closed ballot pools, etc)
        • From WI0901003 Consistent handling of neg without comment from GOM RC 0901 Peer Review Package:

          Any variance from this process or other issues involving the normative ballot shall be addressed to the CTO, who shall triage the issue and engage the appropriate parties for resolution.

      • process for appeal of TSC decision - follow same route: address to CTO
      • DISCUSSION: variance from this process (14.02.04 consensus group, not withdrawal of negative ballots) shall be addressed to the CTO, who shall triage the issue and engage the appropriate parties for resolution. Likewise process for appeal of TSC decision, follow same route: address to CTO. Woody addresses that the CTO needs to be specifically granted authority to resolve appeal to ballot process. Appeal to that, must go to TSC. On the second appeal process, have the CTO make decision, appeal of that decision go to the Board. Chuck clarifies that the WI 0901003 has to do with 14.02.04 just consensus group, not the example of withdrawal of negative ballots.
      • Chuck also says that the TSC is indeed the technical decision making body as delegated by the Board, so that appeal of the TSC decision should not be delegated back to the Board.
      • Ioana clarifies that the clause “any other issues involving the normative ballot” does bring in the negative ballot reconciliation issue to the consensus group issue.
      • Chuck takes an action item on these issues to create a peer review comment form and bring back to the TSC for discussion later.
  5. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. EA IP Update - Second meeting of the EA IP Advisory Group is tomorrow, and a draft set of engagement principles for Alpha Project selection is available for review for tomorrow's discussion.
    2. CEO Report - no report
    3. CTO Report - John sent his regrets
    4. Affiliates Report - no report
    5. Domain Experts -
      • DSTU Trial Period Extension - guest Chuck Meyer
        • Chuck described mixed messages he received: Ken Rubin wanted to be sure that the implementations undertaken under a DSTU are still viable until such time as the normative standard was processed. DSTU is meant to provide structure for trial implementation to give input back to the normative ballot. Chuck thinks it’s inappropriate to extend to say we’re still taking trial input, that it’s not ready as-is. Note section 13.02.06 recognizing commitment and investment implementation accepted as viable or 2 yrs or 6 mos after normative.
        • Ioana asks what happens to the spec itself after 2 years. Chuck says it’s still in effect. Woody clarifies that we just cease publishing it. If no one implemented it, just reissue the DSTU with a new expiration date, you do not need a review vote. Chuck clarified there were changes to the ANSI rules in 2009.
        • Patient Care can simply request to reissue the DSTU without going back to ballot. Criteria for TSC to review the request is, is there a genuine effort to get this spec out the door for implementation as precursor to normative document? Ioana asks there be some objective criteria. WI 0901007 should be reviewed and provide comment if further clarification is needed. Chuck asks Lynn to amend or submit comment on publishing document form not reflected in GOM. Austin will recommend to Patient Care that they can request publication of DSTU and provide justification. Will need to open issue to discuss impacts of change to DSTU process.
    6. Foundation & Technology - no report
    7. Technical & Support Services -
      • Proposed: Request that the TSC petition the Board to transition Process Improvement Committee from a Board Committee to a TSC Project Improvement Work Group as a member of the Technical and Support Services Steering Division. see TSC Tracker #976
        • PIC move from board-appointed to TSC-appointed committee or Work group, not a request by PIC or by TSC. PIC publishing, tooling, etc all part of T3F recommendation in Cologne. PIC was regarded differently than the others. Karen clarified that the GOC received motion that all wg in his SD elect their co-chairs. However, despite PIC being in T3SD as guest do not wish to be part of that process. They like International Mentoring have voice but no vote. As they are not a full member they do not follow same rules. This issue will be dropped.
      • Response on Editorial Review Committee status: Virginia Lorenzi, Dick Harding and Keith Boone had agreed to work with the ArB to develop some checklists of things that should be in order before a document is published. Virginia indicated that the problem is that there is no one to lead the group and neither of the three individuals above have the bandwidth to lead it. She thinks it is still worthwhile if we can find someone to lead the effort.
        • Karen commented on Virginia’s response. Ken says T3SD received request for two people to be on this committee, was his understanding. Woody clarifies ballot quality review issue around T3F migration to TSC may have never really ‘landed’ correctly. Responsibility really lies with Publishing. Ken will let Virginia and Dick know there is no Editorial Review Committee.
  6. (30 min) Discussion topics
    • Ballot Cycle document summary for May2009 [4] Tracker #913
      • Ballot cycle document: may withdraw Patient Care ballot if request for publication for reissue is approved. CDA R2 L3: HAI Release 3 not Release 2; may not have to do a ballot but if there are substantive changes perhaps they ought to go back to ballot. Issue: Scheduling CMET’s for comment only are not listed. May not be correct version of document. Can approve the rest of this anticipating adding that item, with change to Release number on HAI. Unanimously approved.

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2009-03-09_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=4577"