2015-01-18 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for San Antonio WGM

Guests are asked to make alternate arrangements for the noon meal, or respect the opportunity for TSC members to dine first as the food provided is for elected TSC members and invited guests noted on the agenda

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2015-01-18
Time: (12:30 pm Central Timezone)
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne W.
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Regrets Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Vice Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Stan Huff HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
Don Mon HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

  1. 30 minutes ARB/BAM
  2. BAM update (Tony)
  3. Product Family/Product Line (Mary Kay)
  4. FHIR


  • Ken reports that we will begin getting better information from the help desk tracking system starting in February.
  • BAM: We will ballot the BAM in May. Question for TSC: What level should the ballot be? Calvin makes a motion to ballot as informative. Andy moves that we put the BAM-lite (first two stages) as informative in the May ballot cycle. Paul seconds. This would allow us to get some real-world feedback on it. The last section of next steps have been taken out for the time being. No objections, none abstained.
  • PLA Update: Mary Kay presented the work so far of the PLA. PLA needs to be renamed – suggest Product Family Architecture. Background of the project was provided. Shared vision graphic of the TSC including governance, management and methodology. Mary Kay suggests that communication piece should be added into the management sector. Described group’s vision of V3 messaging: Governance is provided by harmonization and TSC; Management happens at WG level; Methodology happens in MnM and Vocabulary. V3 publishing: governance happens in Structured docs; management by structured docs; methodology happens in Structured docs, templates, and vocabulary. V2: governance by publishing with TSC for decisions; management is publishing, methodology is InM, CGIT, and MnM. FHIR: governance by FGB, Management is FMG, Methodology is MnM. Transformation of V2: Mary Kay shared the operational BAM. Is V2 a family or families? To do: complete draft documents. Invite to call CGIT, 2x editors, InM, publishing, TSC, Lynn, Ted Klein, cochairs. Concern about separating product family into standard and IGs – very difficult from an outside world/marketing standpoint. A product line perfect example is UDI. It cuts across everything we have – how do we publish, show, share tell how we manage this problem. And how do we interact with the other standards. Does it serve us to break V2 into types of V2 or do we keep it as one thing? Conclusion was V2, V3 documents, V3 messages, FHIR. This is easiest from a consumer standpoint. Lloyd states that from a FHIR standpoint, all is integrated. Discussion over governance board – how it would operate, what the responsibilities would be, relationship to TSC. The governance board will either be the TSC or delegated by the TSC. Policy comes out of the Board, governance by the TSC. Discussion regarding how USRTF fits in, in its potential new format. Ken asks if anything is needed from the TSC and summarizes conversation. Some concern that there is a governance board that may be one big board or a bunch of little boards. Ken suggests that we get into the process and if it’s not working, we are comfortable making adjustments. Overlap between WGs suggests that we may need to look at that issue. Mary Kay will provide update on progress in Paris.
  • FHIR update: Lloyd McKenzie was in attendance to update the group. Ken asks Lloyd to cover concerns about May ballot and the plan for success. Lloyd states that Q4 meeting covered expectations for DSTU ballot and quality criteria and reconciliation of ballot comments and other submitted tracker items. Content submissions would need to be submitted by March 20th. WGs will give feedback to FGB/FMG by Thursday, at which point there will be a decision on the May ballot and whether all of the quality criteria will be met or if adjustments may need to be made. Will there be a review of the ballot comments in the WG meetings? Lloyd confirms. 450 line items of comment; 350 were about FHIR content and not duplicate. Ken brings up concern about FHIR not using the spreadsheets, etc. and lack of consistency and working outside of HL7 processes. Lloyd states there is a ballot spreadsheet with minor tweaks and customizations. People are submitting comments in the tracker every day and they are considered equal to the ballot comments. Spreadsheet comments will be added to the tracker to have a common repository for reconciliation. There are not plans to do that for the DSTU ballot – will adhere to the GOM. Draft for comment does need reconciliation spreadsheet states Calvin, according to GOM. Discussed drawbacks of not using the standard spreadsheet and Google docs. Ken states that it’s critical that any proposed changes to process must be brought forth for consideration by the community. Lloyd states that they will coordinate with TSC and publishing in order to meet the needs of the WGs for the DSTU. Deviations from the process cause serious risk in terms of ANSI. Suggestion that more communication is needed regarding the tracker process as WGs don’t necessarily know that’s where they should be submitting changes. Lloyd says tomorrow night he will cover these topics and talk with Grahame re: how to solve some of their ballot technology issues and bring back those issues to the TSC to discuss how to address those issues. Suggestion that it goes to FGB first. Discussion over role of FGB and differing ideas of what the FGB’s scope is. FGB is Woody/Dave Shaver, Lorraine, David Hay, Lloyd, Ewout, Ron Parker. Last FHIR topic is good progress was made with ArB today on FHIR Core WG.
  • Meeting adjourned at 6:36.