2009-12-21 TSC Call Minutes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
TSC - Technical Steering Committee
Monday, December 21, 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
- Ioana Singureanu
- Ken McCaslin
- Calvin Beebe
Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call:
|Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SDemail@example.com|
|x||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Alternatefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Bob Dolin||HL7 Chair-elect||BobDolin@gmail.com|
|Charles Jaffe||HL7 CEO||cjaffe@HL7.org|
|x||Austin Kreisler||HL7 DESDemail@example.com|
|x||Lynn Laakso (scribe)||HL7 HQfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSS SD||Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com|
|x||Charlie McCay (chair)||HL7 TSC Chairemail@example.com|
|x||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB||Charlie.firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate||Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net|
|Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternateemail@example.com|
|John Quinn||HL7 CTOfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Alternateemail@example.com|
|Ioana Singureanu||HL7 FTSDfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Helen Stevens||HL7 TSS SD Alternateemail@example.com|
|x||Ed Tripp||HL7 DESD Alternate||Edward.firstname.lastname@example.org|
- Accept Agenda – Keith requested the Templates Registry project be addressed first. Project scope statement and URL sent to individuals but not the cochairs list. Woody will send to TSCAdmins and it would be available for the January 4th conference call for approval. Will not be on today’s call. Mark and Keith sign off. Agenda accepted by general consent.
- Approve Minutes from 2009-12-14_TSC_Call_Minutes –Helen moved to approve; (since the minutes are on the agenda no motion necessary. Unanimously approved.
- Review action items – none this week
Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
- CEO Report – none available
- CTO Report - none available
- EA IP Update:
- ArB Report – Charlie Mead reported two things: the ArB approved the membership criteria requested by TSC. Developed by John and Charlie, input from Ron, and voted upon by ArB last week. Final edits on ECCF chapter, last edits on BF chapter, will be done by first of the year. NCI has scheduled training on the ECCF and want to distribute materials. NIH and FHA cosponsoring webinar on SAEAF; may not be relevant to HL7. Moving at a brisk clip.
- Noted that the document was not distributed. Charlie McCay discussed with John on Friday that a document was supposed to go out that day, but has not. Charlie Mead will send it out to the TSCAdmins list. TSC members review and raise issues to the TSC list for final discussion on Jan 4th.
- Woody asks what is the status of the release of the SAEAF book? V1 was supposed to be Dec 18th, but moved to Dec 31st as Karen S was sick. Should be out by end-of-year, in general release. Helen asks what format is it being published in? Charlie reports there’s a DITA guy working with Karen hired by the NCI. Karen has the graphics in an SVN repository, documents in editing form in SVN, to put into DITA environment, can publish in PDF or other formats once in DITA environment. Jane Curry is coordinating and overseeing the two projects to ensure no duplication of effort, etc. Helen asks if this will be part of the html publishing methodology? SAEAF is first trial instance of publishing from DITA framework, but whether HL7 is ready to move on with other publishing activities is not known. Helen is asking to see if SAEAF is able to publish like the V3 guide. Charlie notes that HDF and core principles are not yet in the DITA, mostly just ECCF, and BF. Woody returns after a brief absence and agrees with Charlie’s assessment. They are still looking at how best to combine them. It is on Publishing’s radar. Will have people looking at it in Phoenix.
- Affiliates Report – Helen notes that the approval to fund the EU office went through this week.
- Domain Experts – Austin and Ed had nothing to report.
- Foundation & Technology – Met last week to discuss templates proposal that Mark was here for, today. Only question was state of the pilot implementation, as a pilot using OHT Forge rather than OHT pilot project framework; not a fully functional implementation pilot.
- Structure & Semantic Design – Gregg reported there were two project proposals out for e-vote ending Friday so perhaps they’ll be out for Jan 4th.
- Technical & Support Services – Project Scope Statement, V10 template was supposed to be distributed to the TSC and on the agenda for Monday. Charlie suggests we review it now and capture comments between now and Jan 4th. Post to the list, ask for comments, plan for approval on the 4th.
For Review 20091214:
- DCM FAQ
- Added question on what is the relationship between DCMs and Templates. Helen feels they will see the questions and understand why we’re asking for an updated project scope statement. Austin pointed out Charlie’s potential answers to the question of when DCMs will be discussed in Phoenix, for Sunday Q4, Tuesday Lunch, and/or Saturday. Austin tentatively arranged with William for a time when TSC members could attend a Patient Care session to discuss. Patient Care is planning to discuss at meetings Tuesday, and in joint session with Structured Documents, notes Bob. Q2 Monday or Q1 Tuesday; Helen can do Q3 Tuesday. Any other members interested in participating? Woody and Charlie McCay are; will need to get on the Doodle poll. We’ll review the outcome of the poll on the 4th. Austin will send the list of questions to William and the Patient Care workgroup.
- Document the process of ArB nomination and confirmation: Charlie sending Lynn the document. ArB general position is that ultimately they answer to CTO and TSC. These are the things they thought important. Issues before the TSC include renewal of terms, size of ArB technically around 12 but functionally around 7-9; formal requirements for representation of Work Groups and Steering Divisions.
- Helen’s initial thoughts: qualifications are on the work the ArB is doing today, how to balance that with representation of constituency groups in HL7. How will the renewal process work? What about the considerations of small organizational members when the qualifications are for large scale enterprise experience? How will the ArB measure the expectations of section 2? Will they publish metrics on member effectiveness and expectation level that feed into the renewal process? Charlie Mead reports that after the first year, some unproductive members were asked to step down and others were appointed. Quantitative notes on attendance are easy to maintain; it’s the out-of-meeting contribution that is harder to track.
- ArB work going forward will require architectural experience; there are architects spread across the organization to the level that they will be represented in the ArB. Perhaps dynamics of projects that cross boundaries will later encourage broader participation but for now the architects are working on the architectural governance rather than going for consensus. Helen agrees, as the ArB is a change agent in the organization and is looked to as an authority. The qualifications need to be stated as such that the membership can understand as being important to the work. Need to express the architectural representation of the rest of the members.
- Charlie McCay interjects that this is a good start but with only 5 minutes left we’ll need to discuss on the listserv and again on the 4th.
- Helen adds the input from non-members is important to note.
- Preponderance of interest, changing jobs providing opportunity for review. Those changes should go through TSC for endorsement after review by CTO.
- Lynn will post the document and send it out.
- Foster development of product strategy – roll forward to Saturday meeting. Note criteria for specifications health checks.
- Agendas for Phoenix
- Helen asks if SD leads have projects that would benefit from international exposure, to bring them there.
- Please review, send any questions to the listserv.
Adjourned 12:02 PM