2009-04-27 TSC Call Minutes

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Daylight 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: 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)
• Ad-Hoc: Jim Case
• HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck, Lynn Laakso

Invited

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

Apologies

• Ioana Singureanu

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following attendees joined the call: Jim Case, Marc Koehn, John Koisch, Austin Kreisler, Lynn Laakso (scribe), Ken McCaslin, Charlie McCay, Charlie Mead, Ravi Natarajan, John Quinn, Gregg Seppala, and Ed Tripp
   2. Accept Agenda – add Japan travel restrictions under discussion; move EA IP update to end; agenda then accepted
   3. Approve Minutes from 2009-04-20 TSC Call Minutes – unanimously approved.
   4. Review action items –
2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
   1. CEO Report – no report.
   2. CTO Report – John was on holiday last week, and is currently at ISO meeting with Charlie in Edinburgh
      • EA IP Update – move to discussion.
   3. ArB Report – did not meet last week; no other update.
   4. Affiliates Report – MIE2009 looking for HL7 representation; did not get a reply? John Quinn will follow up with Ed and send email to TSC list.
   5. Domain Experts -
      • Project Approval: Clinical Genomics - Project Proposal (attachment) on Genetic Testing Reports (tabled from 2009-03-30, 04-06), see PSS at TSC Tracker # 917. Actually belongs to SSD SD.
      • Austin promoted DESD’s high expectations of Jim in Kyoto (with tongue in cheek); Jim’s travel arrangements still need to be changed and may be only there part of the day for the Saturday meeting.
   6. Foundation & Technology - Last Tuesday discussed a proposed RASCI (Responsible, Accountable, Supportive, Consulted, Informed) chart to manage the apparent overlap between various work groups and projects in our Steering Division: Draft RASCI chart. We would like to propose the approach and a first draft chart. In view of great upcoming changes, it may be useful to use RASCI charts for the entire organization collaboratively with the work groups to identify the responsibilities and interests of various stakeholders. A RASCI chart approach may be used for other new, cross-cutting activities initiated by the TSC.
      • Discussion to be held in Kyoto.
   7. Structure & Semantic Design – Gregg doesn’t know status of clinical genomics project. Tabled for this week.
   8. Technical & Support Services - next meeting is this week; no report.
3. (30 min) Discussion topics
   • Proposal for TSC Actionable National Initiative Plan 2009 Scope Statement, at TSC Tracker # 1001
     • Charlie McCay has reached out to Affiliate co-chairs and Government projects group, Helen and James McCain working up a detailed project scope statement. Contact Helen or James to engage. Will be on Affiliates Sunday agenda.
   • Kyoto Agenda
   • EA IP Update –
     • Marc: apologies for missing last Monday; although he knows you got an update from ArB. Roadmap does not look much different at this point; details from flip charts are half into Visio and will be in full electronic form by end of week. Friday progressed some of the milestones and will weave into diagram this week. Framework of resourcing estimates. Actions ranged from: John Quinn to encourage CDA R3 and important initiatives to act in spirit of SAEAF, internal projects PASS and CTS2 for a charter framework to receive tomorrow for expectations vis a vis acting as alpha projects. Need to get those kicked off ; third type of activity Charlie Mead marshal efforts from ArB. No other written responses to Tony Julian’s notes from ArB OOC. In addition to roadmap and resourcing estimates, will have more clarity over two weeks over alpha projects if they get their draft charters into the hopper. Need kickoff conversations with each project regarding review of materials and quality requirements.
     • Charlie Mead: McCay had a concern about internal versus external projects; Koehn and Mead talked about need for moving SAEAF documentation into a formal publishing environment to control its movement. John has money to fund publishing effort. Need technical editor, graphics person, and infrastructure person. Karen contacted Sara Ryan and Jay. II4sm volunteered publishing resource familiar with DITA and graphics person in couple of weeks to get a firm understanding of how to manage all the material. Ravi says should be able to use version control capabilities of HL7 systems. However Mead says there are multiple documents, graphics that are cross-dependent. Must manage like a book, publishing multiple chapters. Koisch says they are currently using GForge but password scheme with subversion (SVN) site is more difficult. There will be several authors. Need to work with Publishing WG on strategy. Mead says the committee is engaged. McCay says need to make most out of the session of Kyoto, to know issues around the rollout. What decisions need to be made, do we have the information in place for ArGB definition of architecture and IP description of rollout? Concern that activities will stall due to resourcing gap, and expectations will be failed due to information gap.
     • Marc reminds that the SAEAF is producing the framework. Notion of organizational architecture including rollout of framework into behaviors and activities. One stream consequences of framework into processes, and another into governance documents and group behaviors.
     • McCay asks if anyone sees feasibility gap? Mead says we have service projects, need document and messaging projects. Change management within HL7 is limiting factor. Koisch says while SAEAF is not'done' but people expecting work products out of it. Suggests TSC make statement to the group that 'SAEAF is immature but it is what HL7 is going with' and make that imprimatur on it. Urgency to move forward but ArB needs green flag to move forward. McCay says roadmaps already in existence should be sufficient to continue to move forward.
     • Marc: major decision points – SAEAF evolution: draft to final, how will artifacts travel through decision points?
       1. Decisions by the TSC? Influence goes through TSC representatives.
       2. “Heavier” process like peer review or even ballot? Members influence through different measures.
     • More resource needed to request of the Board? No new resource funding has come forward. Those conversations may need to happen; need to put a marker down to have those conversations. McCay asks Quinn to ensure that happens, under CTO report.
     • Marc to have sub-bullets available for review prior to arrival in Kyoto.
     • Mead says best thing to do is just to start. TSC will be challenged to support the changes expected in the trenches. NCI senior management struggles with governance and change management, and TSC will also. McCay says we need to be able to declare how they claim their conformance to the SAEAF. Approval process for SAEAF document and other foundational documents. Need a framework for approving with process for maintaining localization documents. Constraint localization, HDF, RIM, SAEAF need timely approval process as coherent block; maybe like GOM process, or like RIM Harmonization: on the table for discussion.
     • Mead says, going forward look at the opportunity to review tools and how they support, or need fixing etc.
     • Ravi asks when SAEAF is final, when someone comes to look at it, what is 'it'? Mead: a set of specifications, framework of artifacts, how to conceptualize any of the three interoperability paradigms. HDF will be implementation guide, paradigm-specific instructions from paradigm out through the wire. Ravi: normative or informative? Would HDF become normative? The foundational documents – what will their approval be, not the specifications that are built using the framework? McCay reiterates a need for the foundational document approval process, and quickly. It’s a building block for EA IP and also needed for responsiveness to organization. Koehn says balance expediency with need for buy-in. Need this, as a priority, on the Saturday discussion.
   • Open Issues List