2010-09-20 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
(Redirected from 2010-09-20 TSC Call Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 124466#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2010-09-20
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie McCay Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
regrets Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Dave Hamill HL7 HQ
x Patrick Loyd invited guest, T3SD co-chair-elect
Rick Haddorff PSC co-chair
x Tony Julian invited guest, FTSD co-chair elect


Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
  3. Approve Minutes of 2010-09-13_TSC_Call_Agenda
  4. Review action items –
    • #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin
    • #1322 - ArB membership needs to be reviewed and re-confirmed biannually starting with this upcoming WGM.
    • #1648 - Revised Plan for Enterprise Architecture Implementation Project: Who on the TSC is prepared to take the lead on resolving this?
  5. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  6. CTO Report - John Quinn
  7. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  8. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  10. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
  11. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
  12. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
  13. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  14. WGM Planning -
  15. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  16. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Project
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects:
        • Tabled Motion: accept Universal Realm project guidelines as discussed on July 19th (postponed from last week's discussion)
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum
          • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
          The assumption with these criteria is that a project should be considered Realm specific unless it can meet the above criteria (or some acceptable subset).
      • #1590 - TSC Review of Project Approval Process - last discussed on 2010-06-21, separated into process documents based on Project Sponsor and including HL7 Affiliate-Sponsored Projects.
      • # 1364, Foster development of Product Strategy

Supporting Documents

  1. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1634/7541/HL7ProjectScopeStatementMicrobiologyTemplate-20100916.doc
  2. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1625/7474/2010-05-20HL7ProjectScopeStatement-SAIFandSoundFinal.doc
  3. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1636/7525/HL7USReadinessPSSv0r2.doc
  4. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1590/7533/ProjectApprovalProcess_v2010_20100820_All_Processes.zip

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Visitors: Dave Hamill, HL7 HQ re: Project Approval Process. Rick Haddorff expected, not present
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
    • Austin asks to move up guidelines for approving Universal projects
    • Agenda approved.
  3. #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects:
    • Tabled Motion: accept Universal Realm project guidelines as discussed on July 19th (postponed from last week's discussion)
      • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum
      • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
      • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
      • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
      The assumption with these criteria is that a project should be considered Realm specific unless it can meet the above criteria (or some acceptable subset).
    • What subset is acceptable? How does this get represented in the scope statement – checkboxes?
    • Third requirements for implementers is only required for DSTU. Helen notes the TSC might use discretion in applying these as guidelines. Projects should strive to be universal realm.
    • This will also be discussed on Sunday Affiliates’ Council at WGM.
    • Ken sees “one or more” as an acceptable subset. Austin will draft a paragraph for final TSC review. Motion tabled.
  4. Meeting Minutes: approved unanimously
  5. Review action items –
    • #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin; Ken has no bandwidth, won’t have anything before the WGM. Ken updated the project in GForge.
    • #1322 - ArB membership needs to be reviewed and re-confirmed biannually starting with this upcoming WGM.
      • Charlie notes he has concerns on his effectiveness as a chair with his immersion in the NCI efforts. He is discussing with Ron about potentially seeking other leadership. Charlie McCay notes that this is not what he was expecting. John now chimes in, having joined the call. Discussion deferred to WGM.
    • #1648 - Revised Plan for Enterprise Architecture Implementation Project: Who on the TSC is prepared to take the lead on resolving this?
    • Preparing for effective discussion on EA IP. Topic becoming increasingly urgent. Virginia’s email asking on documents using SAIF illustrates need for TSC’s overview of status.
    • Charlie Mead (CMead) notes that in preparation for the SAIF book they knew they would have to grapple with governance. In that role the ArB may have to transition from developer of SAIF to overseer of implementation. SAIF implementation means some kind of architecture governance; it doesn’t have to be heavy-handed but it has to be there. Charlie McCay agrees and notes a resourcing challenge alongside a mindset and culture challenge. Woody notes there must be a premise that the ArB must delegate individual elements to other groups to break up the work into manageable pieces. CMead noted the ECCF was intended to be delegated to the Implementation and Conformance group but met with hesitation. Mead Walker notes the challenge is to bridge the gap between what we can do and what we need to do. First we need to know what ‘can’ be done. Charlie McCay agrees it is happening in a sort of lightweight manner now but need to figure out what is practical. CMead notes NCI identified what they should do, what they are doing, and the risks when they fall short. Mead W. notes we’ve projected a lot of plans without knowing if they’re feasible. Calvin asks if we have a list of the components that need to be governed. CMead will post NCI implementation guide for evaluation. They scoped governance to services at enterprise scale. It manifests into a collection of artifacts sitting in the ECCF. Calvin offers to take a first crack at such a list, with CMead’s help. Look at the activities, where they fall in the organization, and figure out how to manage those activities. Charlie McCay notes we should review this in Cambridge. Scope is smaller in terms of design not implementation and runtime, but larger in terms of more than services but messages and documents as well. ACTION ITEM: Calvin and Charlie Mead will have something for review in Cambridge.
  6. CEO/Chair: no report
  7. CTO: CTeam Chuck Bob and ED and Mark in South Africa CapeTown last week at MedInfo, so nothing to report.
  8. ArB: Charlie Mead notes he missed last week’s meeting, can Tony give a report? Tony notes they’re working to pull things together for the Cambridge meeting, with Project Services, Impl/Conf, and SOA and trying to get BF and some other documents finalized.
  9. Affiliates: nothing to report.
  10. DESD: nothing to report.
  11. FTSD: meeting this week.
  12. SSD SD:
    • Tabled Motion: to approve Project Scope Statement for Orders & Observations WG Microbiology Antibiotic Sensitivity Result Template; See TSC Tracker # 1634, Project Insight #586
    • Austin notes the project scope statement is a poster child for the new International Universal realm recommendations.
    • VOTE: Project approved unanimously.
  13. T3SD: Rick not on the call, postpone SAIF and Sound project statement to next week. Woody asks he clarify the one-year cycle could begin at any point in time rather than in lock-step.
  14. WGM: Registration over 450!
  15. ORC: Helen had to leave.
  16. Discussion
    • Open issues;
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness ProjectHealthcare Readiness project not to deliver on requirements for Meaningful Use but provide governance on development of projects to meet requirements.
      • Woody moves to approve, notes could be Universal but probably U.S. Realm. Concern might be the U.S. effort might derail other projects in Universal realm. Universal realm guidelines met with multi-realm participation, etc. Impetus is one-realm but focus is multiple. Oversight needs to take into account universal requirements while dealing with U.S. specifics.
      • Second by Calvin. VOTE (in-committee, to be sent to co-chairs and International chairs): unanimously approved.
      • #1590 - TSC Review of Project Approval Process - last discussed on 2010-06-21, separated into process documents based on Project Sponsor and including HL7 Affiliate-Sponsored Projects.
      • Project Approval Process – Dave Hamill on the call, sent out revisions on project approval split out by audience. Two focuses: to TSC projects and International projects.
      • International projects for TSC review: will that be all realms or Universal Realm projects as well? Might be 5 projects from each of 30 affiliates overwhelm the TSC agenda. Realm-specific project may not need to come to TSC. Microbiology project just approved a good example of technical work that then comes up through the work groups. Mead Walker asks how we know if something is technical? Dave doesn’t have a definition of what is technical. Should we allow it to be gated by coming through a work group? Woody notes ‘technical’ projects either create new constraints that are not localized, or are dealing with technical artifacts. Ken asks who should define what technical means, if not TSC, then Project Services? Currently p5 says even affiliate business, non technical are going to the TSC. Maybe they should move to right hand column. Austin asks about projects with an attached budget and where is the budget request addressed? Postpone remainder of discussion to next week’s call.
  17. Adjourned 12:02 PM EDT.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Austin will draft a paragraph for final TSC review of Universal project criteria
  • Calvin and Charlie Mead will have something for a list of the components that need to be governed for review in Cambridge.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-09-20_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=6985"