2011-08-08 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
(Redirected from 2011-08-08 TSC Call Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Temporary Conference Call coordinates (pilot of new bridge)

Call in number: +1 706-634-4215

Passcode stays the same: 124466#

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

'Location: call 770-657-9270 706-634-4215 using code 124466#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2011-08-08
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Ken McCaslin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
regrets Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Jay Zimmerman HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Jane Daus Publishing- Version 2.7.1 discussion
x Brian Pech observer
x Don Lloyd HQ, V2.7.1 discussion
x Mark McDougall HQ, cochair discussion

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


Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2011-08-01 TSC Call Agenda
  4. Review action items
  5. Approval items:
  6. Discussion topics:
    • Cytogenetics in current ballot without scope statement having been approved by Steering Division and TSC?
    • V2.7.1 ballot issues - Ken
    • September 2011 Work Group Co-Chair election qualifications - Ken
  7. Open Issues List

Supporting Documents

  • See links


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests); Jane is on for the V2.7.1 discussion, Brian as observer.
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler – move 2.7.1 discussion up to accommodate visitors. Agenda approved by general consent.
  3. Approve Minutes of 2011-08-01 TSC Call Agenda Jay abstains; 6/0/1.
  4. Discussion topics:
    • V2.7.1 ballot issues - Ken
      • What is the product for 2.7.1? Is it an attachment to the 2.7 release or a full blown specification. Ken notes the current direction is to publish 2.7.1 as a standalone standard. 2.3.1 should not be a precedent but 2.5.1 was a full release notes Woody. Don says 2.5.1 was a full standard. Jane notes that they intended to ballot just changes. John comments that we can scope the ballot only to the changed items. Don notes that they provide a header with a list of changes to the chapter. We only want comments on the changes, John notes. Jane asks what they will see, if they purchase 2.7.1 they won’t get the base standard? John says that we can package 2.7.1 with the 2.7 standard base documents. Woody asks if this is about conformance for 2.7 versus 2.7.1? Jane says that if they are conformant to 2.7.1 they would also be conformant to 2.7 in parts. You would have to package 2.7 plus the four chapters that have changes, with instructions. Tony notes that the embedded tables linked to chapter 2.c which the 2.7 links to 2.7 chapter 2.c not 2.7.1 - 2.c. John notes we’ll need instructions to update the chapters on your directory so the links work correctly. Jane notes she went through the other chapters and chap 2.c is the one with links to worry about. Don notes with the naming convention you would have to rename your 2.7 chap 2c. Tony would prefer to see we do what we did with 2.5.1 which is to ballot the changes but publish the whole standard. Jane is concerned about the work for Don. Don notes that it’s not too significant.
      • Ken moves we ballot just the changes to chapters affected and publish for ballot a document with just the changes. (including 2.c usage table in chapter 2 being added and version # table is modified as technical edit to 2.7.1) John seconds the motion.
        • Jane thought he’d be balloting each chapter independently with track changes turned on. John notes that in doing so there must be instructions that we’re only accepting comments on the changed part.
        • Don asks if we were discussion the V2 database in regards to this. John notes that it’s a separate topic on the delivery of 2.7.1
      • Ken amends the motion to ballot with the full chapters 2b, 2c, 4 and 7 with the changes noted and instruction that the ballot is on just the changes. John agrees to the amendment.
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
      • Ken further moves that the publishing of V2.7.1 is the full standard (set of documents) for purchase or download. Tony seconds.
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Mark McDougall joins the call. Jane and Don leave the call.
    • September 2011 Work Group Co-Chair election qualifications – Ken
      • Does the TSC want to address the issue of qualifications for cochair elections prior to election based on their past attendance of WGMs?
      • Woody asks if we’re talking about known participants or new attendees? Ken says this person is familiar to all. Austin asks while the GOM has guidance on criteria for removing a seated co-chair this would this be criteria for prior to their eligibility for election? Ravi notes that some organizations are restricting travel and would cause a problem. Woody notes a circumstance where a person is involved in conference calls and participating in that respect – but cannot attend the meetings.
      • Austin asks if the individual is currently a cochair. Ken notes that it is, as are some of the others. Austin notes as a first step the appropriate steering division cochairs have a discussion with those cochairs that are failing to meet their current requirements in the GOM to ascertain whether they feel they’ll be able to meet those criteria in the future. John notes that if these work groups are at a minimum number of cochairs and have difficulty recruiting others to run for cochair – we may need to look at the health of the work group to see if it’s viable. Woody is aware of work groups that have cochairs having challenges to participation of late.
      • Austin notes three criteria from the GOM for WGM attendance, 60% conference call attendance, or meeting other requirements from GOM. HQ is also supposed to survey membership to determine viability of work groups prior to the Sept WGM. Should we take steps based on that survey? DO we discuss with them how they plan to address those issues going forward?
      • Ken will distribute the document Lynn provided to everyone and let the Steering Divisions address. Woody asks if this should be routine, provided each time or this time each year? Austin asks Mark if HQ was planning to do this survey? Mark thought he was invited to address the contract with Frank Oemig and is not prepared to discuss the survey. More background on the intent of this part of the GOM is needed to review that criteria, meanwhile Ken will send the report on the current nominees and the SD co-chairs will address with their WGs.
      • John notes that he will be selling Frank’s database as a tool, and do we need caveats for which versions it works with. Mark doesn’t note anything in the contract but it references 2.1 though 2.7. John will take it back to the Tooling WG to see if it can be fixed for 2.7.1. HL7 has the IP for the tool now. Its long term viability is still to be decided.
    • Cytogenetics in current ballot without scope statement having been approved by Steering Division and TSC?
      • Austin suggests we pull that back to draft for comment. Ed agrees with that. Woody moves and Ed seconds to change its ballot level. Vote: unanimously approved.
  5. Review action items – REVIEW FOR NEXT WEEK
    • #1980 Draft project scope statement for TSC Strategic Initiative Dashboard measures project planning (Austin & John)
    • #1978 Update ballot guidance document on reference to "Implementation Guide" (Austin)
      • Austin briefly reviews his changes to a matrix on each product type from the product list and what type of balloting is allowed. Ken notes that the definition of the normative standard should be reviewed with Karen. Woody notes that ANSI is not very clear about such things, that they will accept what we have balloted according to their guidelines. For example conformance is defined in a chapter in V2, core principles and so on in V3 – how is that defined for Arden, CCOW, EHR etc. which may cause us to re-examine that criteria. The IG section should clarify that the normative standard to which it provides constraint shall be identified. Austin agrees.

Meeting adjourned 11:58 AM EDT. Please complete the conference calling pilot survey

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Please complete the conference calling pilot survey. Next week starts the pilot of the new platform
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .