2013-12-12 TSC Leadership Call

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
WebEX: [1]

Date: 2013-12-12
Time: 2:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Chair/CTO ArB
x Austin Kreisler x Tony Julian
x John Quinn x Lorraine Constable
x Ken McCaslin


  • US Realm Task Force leadership transition
    • Should we stand up a US Realm Product line (with appropriate governance/management/methodology)
  • Product Line Architecture leadership transition
  • TRAC
  • UDI Task force
  • SAIF AP shutdown
  • FHIR Governance, what to about FGB M&C and FGB Leadership
  • Reconstituting ArB membership
Member Affiliation Member Affiliation
Julian, Tony ChairMayo ClinicConstable, Lorraine Vice-Chair Constable Consulting Inc.
Quinn, John CTO Health Level Seven, Inc.Parker, Ron*CA Infoway
Bond,Andy NEHTA Hufnagel, Steve* U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
Curry, Jane*Health Information Strategies Loyd, Patrick*ICode Solutions
Dagnall, BoHP Enterprise ServicesLynch, Cecil*Accenture
Stechshin, Andy CANA Software and Service LtdMilosevic, ZoranDeontik Pty Ltd
    • '*' indicates infrequent participation
  • Should the TSC establish a Conformance Testing and Help Desk task force?
  • HL7 IP Police
  • V2.x Product Family?
    • V2 publishing is the defacto management arm
    • InM is the defacto Governance arm


Convened 2:06 PM
Agenda review

  • HL7 IP Police; Ken asks who assigned this to Austin? It's fallen to the TSC Chair since John was TSC Chair. Need to protect nearly-complete material as members only should have access to new standards for the first three months. Ken notes that the S&I work had put a lot of material in the public domain and he sees the need to present this again to cochairs in training. Austin cautions that the project facilitators are often the worst offenders and need a different approach for them. Lorraine notes it will require a multi-prong approach.
  • John joins
  • US Realm Task Force leadership transition
    • Austin feels this should be led by someone on the TSC, best the chair. Ken voices concerns over perception by the affiliates. Austin reports it's been well received as the HL7 International approach to dealing with the lack of a US Affiliate and that members from affiliates are on the task force. UDI task force may wrap up at facilitators' roundtable in San Antonio and then bring back to TSC for endorsement and process enforcement. May need to make a project of this retrospectively.
    • Ken asks how projects are entertained for review by the Task Force; generally as projects come for TSC approval. It reports to the TSC and not the BOD.
    • Might create a standing committee and assign a chair to recognize its ongoing nature. Alternately might consider it a product line. Discussion ensued on the Affiliate Council representative for the US being Stan Huff or Ed Hammond and whether they should be participating on the Task Force.
    • Should we stand up a US Realm Product line (with appropriate governance/management/methodology)
  • Product Line Architecture leadership transition - Austin feels this needs to be headed by a TSC member until a product director position reporting to the CTO is developed
  • TRAC - standing committee under the TSC, chair by Pat Van Dyke; risk assessment as part of the developing BAM. Developing governance points around critical risks
  • UDI Task force - see above.
  • SAIF AP shutdown - Austin will shepherd this to its shutdown
  • FHIR Governance, what to about FGB M&C and FGB Leadership
    • Exemplar for product family working well for management structure but FGB is suffering resource shortage from Ron. Lorraine adds he has been providing the ArB perspective as well and cannot effectively do that any longer. The chair is elected from within the FGB. Balance of personalities and relationships as well as time commitment to chair has been difficult. He may not be freed up from day job demands any time soon. Perhaps we have them elect a different chair and allow Ron to continue to participate. Changes to membership are pending M&C review which is on Ron's task list.
    • FMG doing a good job and getting the spec ready for publishing. Lorraine note that adding a couple more people has helped immensely. Key change for the FMG chairs to share a seat on the FGB instead of vice versa has not happened. Transitions and membership changes in January for staggered terms will be based on John's recommendations still. TSC chair should not be entangled in the group but be aware of their actions.
    • Austin notes that Calvin has suggested a single governance board across product families with multiple management groups. This ties in nicely with cross-product consistency in the Strategic Initiatives.
    • Ken asks if ArB should have governance or management involvement, though they have the methodology responsibility at the TSC level. Governance and BAM sort of got set aside by other events this summer. Ken suggests a second chair but instead of a vice chair to have co-chairs. ArB has chair and vice-chair though they operate as co-chairs, despite what the GOM says. Ken would like to see a definition of vice chairs vs cochairs from Roberts Rules, or ArB's DMP.
  • Reconstituting ArB membership
    • Over the summer the review function of the ArB became needed again (HL7 Supreme Court) and the current membership was configured to developing architecture rather than review. Ron's participation has now been curtailed. Austin and John have historically discussed with ArB chair and vice chair and John made recommendations. Need some new candidates for review function going forward. Lorraine notes that the lurkers are seen as learners and once they are familiar are considered for membership. Jeff Brown is the most recent example. Austin notes that his participation on ArB discussions has been more wearing a product director hat rather than the TSC Chair hat. He won't be able to continue in that role in 2014.
    • Lorraine suggests they apply the architecture views to the ArB roles to determine what resources they need to fulfill the functions they are asked to do. Ken asks if they could get their (reconstitution) recommendations by the May WGM. Lorraine suggests that they complete the BAM this WGM but set aside some time to figure out how to deal with this to get started. Jane is on sabbatical and her continued participation is undecided. Zoran will not be at the WGM though he has been participating regularly. Ron cannot participate. Steve attends some calls but cannot take on tasks. Patrick has not been attending calls but has been completing assigned tasks. Cecil attends infrequently and like all the ArB members has important contributions, when they are there. Ken Rubin has been another suggestion or Michael van der Zel or David Hay. Paul Knapp might be another though he's recently taken on other tasks. Keith Boone and Calvin would be good though also overtasked. Tentatively Ken will plan to attend ArB at Q2 Sunday. Need to let the Affiliate Council chairs (Michael/Helen/Phillip?) know they will be putting Ken on the agenda instead of Austin in Q1.
  • Should the TSC establish a Conformance Testing and Help Desk task force?
    • Discussion on conformance testing a couple weeks ago for recommendation on scenarios for conformance. Setting up processes where it affects operations of the Work Groups is where the TSC needs to be involved.
    • Ken asks if contractor agreed to have HL7 experts involved and what the vetting process would be? Lorraine notes there were HL7 expertise requirements in the RFP. Austin notes that the expert selected on CDA was not familiar with its use of the V3 base standard. Ken further asks who is doing the vetting and it appears to be Mark and Karen of HQ. Help Desk paid staff having expectations of SDWG (any WG) as tier 3 support needs to be addressed as well as expectations for turnaround time for WG review. In addition, review of the answers being provided is further needed. Austin cautions that the conformance testing questions may flood the help desk. Task force needs members from TSC as well as members of affected WGs having tier 3 support and those that are having conformance testing. PHER, OO, SDWG, for example. Staff overseeing help desk and conformance testing should also be involved. FHIR may be added in a year or so for support on help desk and conformance testing.
    • Austin recommends a TSC task force for this. Setting one up within the TSC does not require Board approval for reviewing activities within WG operations. Need to line up a chair, preferable a TSC member, and some member suggestions. Austin has not lined anyone up for this yet so Ken needs to sound out some candidates. Could even discuss this on Monday's agenda to seek candidates. Lynn will add to the agenda.
  • V2.x Product Family? Cutoff for proposals for 2.9 at next WGM sparked discussion about management of 2.x. Not to indicate the current process is broken but might formalize what is already being done today and could start with 2.9 to document the process. May need to finalize more with the BAM before we advance this.
  • Lorraine asks some housekeeping issues. Do we need another call to answer questions and help Ken frame is thoughts? Would he like to and when to have an ongoing technical leadership call? Ken likes the call on Friday at 9am. Austin suggests he create a new calendar appointment as he is the owner of the current one. Ken's good with keeping things as they are. Lynn will create the new calendar appointment.

Adjourned 4:02 PM.