2009-05-10 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sunday May 10, 2009 6pm-8pm (Q5)

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Meeting Admin -

  • Roll Call: The following individuals were in attendance: Calvin Beebe, Woody Beeler, Jim Case, Dennis Giokas, Ed Hammond, Stan Huff, Lynn Laakso, Charlie Mead, Ken McCaslin, Charlie McCay, Ravi Natarajan, and John Quinn
  • Accept Agenda – EA IP include map out foundational artifacts. Move EA IP to beginning of discussion

Agenda -

EA IP discussion: map foundational artifacts

  • Categories of foundational documents
    • Technical (specification):
      • RIM
      • Structural Vocabulary,
      • Data Types,
      • How these three relate: core principles
      • Refinement and localization
    • Process:
      • HDF
      • Facilitators’ Guide
      • Publisher’s Handbook
    • Support:
      • V3 Guide
  • Discussion Points:
    • What happens to the documents and how do they get approved going forward. Refinement/localization is dependent on RIM, Core Principles. If we have problems maintaining balloting of those as separate documents… we’ll have similar problems with SAEAF book.
    • Publishing format of SAEAF not to follow the handbook. Approval and endorsement process do not have closure yet. This discussion is not about publishing, just approval process.
    • SAEAF is framework for developing EA but there are foundational documents that are not defined in SAEAF.
    • If EA is combination of Business and Technical Architecture, then GOM is part of the book. SAEAF is a framework, not the things that are generated by the framework.
    • Woody says BF and IF are part of core principles.
  • The SAEAF book chapters are:
    1. Introduction
    2. Behavioral Framework BF (has part of Core Principles)
    3. Information Framework (suggested name) has part of Core Principles
    4. ECCF includes Refinement and Localization
    5. Governance (GF)
    6. Implementation Guide (IG) includes HDF, Facilitator’s Guide and Publisher’s Handbook
    7. Examples and lessons learned
  • So the EA contains the primitives from engineering -
    • RIM
    • Structural Vocabulary
    • ITS
    • Data Types
    • CDA
  • There is another category then, with manufacturing stuff (composites) or real products
    1. CMET
  • Presuming the EA is entirely balloted. Balloted reference material is significant overhead. Pieces you pull into the SAEAF come from both normative and informative documents. SAEAF goes through 2 or 3 major iterations before approval? Or SAEAF approved release for every cycle WGM.
  • ArB cannot manage this “book” without the infrastructure talked about on Saturday. Need tools other than powerpoint decks and word documents. Never make that cycle without the tools.
  • Approval process comparable to harmonization process and GOM process that each has peer review and decision making body, as McCay illustrates.
  • McCaslin notes that if we make it available externally why wouldn’t it be balloted like another product that is licensed.
  • The body doing the harmonization is not the TSC.
  • RIM was not originally balloted as normative, and came to normative later on; still had a harmonization process early on before normative balloting.
  • Mead identifies something he fears we can’t resolve. SAEAF as framework can be instantiated into more than one architecture. They may only be balloted as an instance within HL7 for ECCF. Template in ECCF defines what the specification stack looks like in the EA. Balloting EA stuff will be different than framework stuff.
  • Woody hopes we don’t make SAEAF so generalizable it becomes un-useful for HL7.
  • Marc asks what are the objectives: balloting for transparency and acknowledgement of resolution of comments or harmonization instead. McCay just wants a release each cycle no matter what the authorization or endorsement process. Marc asks where we go from Beta to “V1” that we begin to enforce development according to the new EA. Calvin sees a cycle of release with content review, and then an eventual point where we draw the line. McCay sees it more gradual, not such a hard line, as changing the organization in one WGM cycle is not feasible. The change to the work groups is probably perceived, within V3 per Woody, that it is significant but beneficial and they’re willing to take it on.
  • Mead suggests if we are good without communication and well organized, then we can have something version 1.0 but still stamped as draft as Woody described with the history of the RIM, by next year. It’s not the technical stuff that will have difficulty accepting but the process (change management) stuff.
  • Ed says the he hears the group is not demonstrating firm belief they can bring the organization around. Woody indicates we don’t understand the ECCF well enough yet, bit of a black hole.
  • Marc asks What do we need to say about the process of the SAEAF iterations? Go to the ArB meetings or have balloting comments? Or something else?
  • Woody asks if core principles needs to become the IF, does the ArB have a preconceived structure for that? Take it offline.
  • Marc feels we need to give people clarity on how they can influence this process. Woody feels it should be a single meeting, materials sent out two weeks in advance, going through the whole document, and then updates ready for the next WGM. Cycle starts 4 weeks before each WGM. It would be a meeting of people who can address the details of the SAEAF. E.g. harmonization meeting and ArB meeting.
  • ArB “owns” the SAEAF but the contents coming from other groups. Do they really want that? ArB would have to designate others. They own ‘building’ the framework but don’t own the SAEAF. The users, as represented by the TSC, own the document.
  • The f2f review with resolution of issues should be ArB, and TSC sign off on the SAEAF harmonization report, suggests McCay.
  • Quinn says FTSD will be impacted first; Woody disagrees. SSD secondly; does not impact Domain Experts immediately.
  • Seem to be leaning towards Harmonization process with ArB as delegated representatives of TSC. Marc would like someone to speak to that process on Wednesday. Woody asks if the Board will fund the additional expense for sending these representatives to a harmonization process. Calvin asks about the alpha project participation for that. McCay deferred remaining discussion until Tuesday lunch.
  • ArB allows anyone to comment but only members, presumably with ‘real’ architectural experience, have voting rights. Dissenting views are recorded and made visible but the ArB makes the decision. Harmonization technically has an appeal process through the TSC, yet no one has ever followed.
  • Woody shall document the process for Wednesday. Will check before August meeting to see if alpha project is viable to determining if funding is needed.

Tooling alignment

  • Koisch and Woody would sit down and go over them together. Need to know when tooling investments are happening to feed in EA requirements to that process. Other tooling processes in other areas (OHT) on other timeframes. SAEAF aware input to those other tooling specifications would be advisable.
  • Marc recounts four dimensions to each of those boxes for authoring, representation, data structure, etc where we need to know what that might be. That may be the conversation with Koisch and Woody. Need to get the right document in there to capture that. The real art of getting this to work is getting each of the twelve boxes down to just two choices?
    • Mccay redirected to the next agenda item.

Technical Plan

  • John is on the agenda for a draft technical plan for the board meeting on Tuesday. John was going to work with Karen on it… he needs to get the notes from Karen; defer to Tuesday lunch.

Annual objectives and Resource Plan

  • Resource plan – we’ve discussed the ability to more cogently identify resources. We requested resource and got Lynn and that has provided value. What do you want to ask McCay for next. Ed remarks to look at it as a whole, new expenses coming in for SAEAF, but there is additional opportunity if stimulus money becomes available. Need to look at whole picture. What are we asking people to spend on tooling, RIM harmonization, ArB: should we be rebalancing. If TSC is to identify resource needs need to know the other parts of the pictures. Ed says the prior request was clearly the top priority so the Board could act quickly. Need to likewise identify that top priority.
  • Charlie said the TSC is asked to manage things we need to know what there is to be managed. Ed suggests a package to make a case that with this package, this impact can be made. Calvin asks if this ties in to Roadmap investments; the response was affirmative. Quinn recounts Jane Curry’s tooling planning update he received indicates our ability to spend more money now to avoid spending additional money later but those choices have not yet been made. Ed says we need to know the priorities and what is the return so that they may plan for the short term assuming there is no stimulus money and then can identify what must be funded if money becomes available.
  • John wants to identify what’s been spent, what is the constant burn, and midyear status, cost of prep for foundation of new tools, and how to stop the increased spending over time.
  • Charlie says TSC’s been asked to review technical plan and resourcing but resourcing has been absorbed into Tooling budget. How will we get feedback from other SDs if TSC does not review. Ed needs to know immediate needs vs 6-month request. Ravi asks if we have incident catalogs of how much went to each request? We’ll see Johns spreadsheet on Tuesday for yearly budget, pieces for work done to publish every year and to fund harmonization.
  • Ed asks: the c-team has been willing to propose to Board to use reserve funds to pay for these investments; what is the feeling of this group? Need to make a solid case. Charlie’s concern is what is the role of the TSC in this process.

Actionable National Initiative Plan

  • In addition to being discussed at Affiliate’s Council this morning. Charlie discussed with Dennis on how to describe the value HL7 is delivering to national initiatives. They get value out of what SDOs do and what HL7 produces; we fail to package that in such a way that they can ‘buy’ it and invest in it so that we can create more of that product. Challenge to the organization for how to create that packaging. Ed asks for sample from Canada we can see what it looks like. Ed asks Dennis what Infoway would want to see in such a package. Charlie says he talked to Richard C from NHS; the valuable stuff for CFH that has been generated… packaging the value to overcome resistance, and communicate to the leadership how they can invest in developing that capability. Dennis says, I need a tool it will cost $1M, and HL7 recognizes four other countries want the same type of thing they can now divide the cost. They would contribute notionally 1/5 of the cost, or perhaps a premium at $250,000.
  • Charlie says e.g. we want to define EHR content and need a technology refresh on a periodic basis, we can buy into (IHTSDO example adds Dennis). Ed adds that Dennis’ model fits a conversation had earlier with Czech Republic representative. May change funding model based on ability to pay or size of customer US vs Czech Republic vs Canada.
  • A view on this project would be an opportunity to develop and capture those ideas and a business model.
  • Ken says the best people to manage it would be the Affiliate chairs as they know their countries best. McCay responded that some work directly with hl7.org and not through their affiliate org.
  • Mead says NCI was ready to walk away until SAEAF came along. If there’s a way they can be engaged although not technically a national initiative – but we’re talking about PEOs not exclusively national governments like affiliates represent. Agencies as well as countries may wish to throw into the pot. Ed thinks this might be a combination of Board project and TSC project.
  • Marc recounts that Jim McCain suggested those that were interested get together this week for a time.
  • Rename project according to Marc’s description: spec outputs or faster pace of change, may be a number of things. If HL7 was able to do this better, I will be willing to fund or encourage this with resources. *Comparison to RWJ. Repurpose the actionable national initiatives and talk to Jim McCain about something like a large customer partnership programs, or coalitions of these large customer partnerships.

Adjourn 8:15 PM