2015-05-10 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Sunday meeting for Paris WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Apogee 7		Date: 2015-05-10 Time: 5:00p - 6:00p
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
?	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Vice Chair
s	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets	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
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)

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

1. ArB
2. BAM
3. FHIR

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Guests: Mary Kay McDaniel, Josh Mandel, Austin Kreisler, Lloyd McKenzie

• ArB: Almost finished reconciliation for BAM. A few misconceptions regarding what it should be vs. what it is; education is needed. Purpose was to inform HL7 TSC on how to proceed on bringing in new products and aligning lines and families. Comments indicate misunderstandings. PLA will operationalize what was done. Andy suggests that ArB come up with 4-5 slide presentation to put on web/distribute. Will add to co-chair agenda in Atlanta.
• FHIR: Lloyd McKenzie present to discuss FHIR Infrastructure WG formation. Discussion at earlier lunch revolved around transition plans for all FHIR groups so no issues are orphaned in transition to SGB and formation of FIWG. There is work that happens on developing and maintaining reference implementations that are stored in different places – one in Delphi, one in csharp, one in Java, etc. and so on. That work will not be owned by HL7 – it is open source development. Those are made available under the FHIR spec. Paul – why won’t we curate them? Lloyd: they won’t be offered through HL7; there is specific language avoiding responsibility. Andy: any legal issue like that has to go to the board because it is offered with our materials. We have to be very careful about what we distribute under what licenses; must be reviewed by CTO. Lloyd: there may be a variety of licenses. Andy: we don’t have to link to them, but if we do there must be a process. Ken: this is what I was speaking about that must be on the transition plan. Paul: it is being done in HL7’s name. Lloyd: FMG would have authority over this. FHIR core is used to refer to a bunch of different things. Paul: there was an activity that we referred to as FHIR core that needed to occur outside of FMG and FGB. Lloyd: FMG is responsible for determining that everything has an owner and a process. Resources are all owned by WGs. Some of the resources have been nominally assigned to FHIR core. Once FIWG there will no longer be anything assigned to FHIR core and FMG will determine where those things move. Paul: is there anything left when those things move to FIWG? Lloyd: reference implementations have never been assigned from FMG to anyone. FMG is responsible for them. Ken: more is going on at FMG than people are aware of, and it would be good if FHIR was more informative about that. Austin: a lot of the things that Grahame has identified that aren’t transitioning but are things that core team has been dealing with are things that a product director would deal with. Members of core team have been essentially acting as product directors. Ken: we’re having a struggle because great conversations are going on behind the scenes but those of us trying to understand what’s happening need a transition document to help us. Lloyd: we haven’t enumerated everything as of yet. Andy: it might help us and you to identify the things that you don’t have locations for yet and label them undetermined. Paul: to clarify, what we’re asking for is the list of things, not the end state of the things. Lloyd: the challenge is that we’re being asked to list things that don’t have anything to do with FIWG. Ken: if things are to be managed outside of HL7, we still need to articulate them. FMG has a responsibility to articulate what isn’t being handled by HL7 and why. Paul: we need to ensure that we aren’t dropping any balls. Lloyd states that he is happy to commit to providing the list of things we know of. The question he has is, given the assertion that what is transitioning to FIWG is only those pieces that have already been enumerated and everything else remains where it is currently, is that sufficient to go forward with the formation of FIWG? Calvin: I’m willing to entertain that if we get this list, we can consider the establishment of the WG. Ken: I think we can move them forward given the approved transition plan. MOTION: Calvin moves to establish the WG given the forthcoming list; second by Jean. Grahame states he is bothered by creating the list. Jean: the TSC/HL7 reserve the right once we’ve seen the list to say that something should be addressed sooner than later if it’s a gap in the organizational process. Andy: things that are in the future will simply be in the future. More concerned about who takes care of which pieces that you do know of and are real. Tomorrow will manage tomorrow. Paul: all we’re interested in are the things we’re doing now. Grahame: it’s not the standards stuff that is the question. It’s the question about feeling out our relationship with the community. Ken: the TSC is asking for the transition plan and who is going to manage issues that are not defined right now. Paul: we only need to know the things that affect HL7. If you are speaking in the name of HL7 when you are doing the task, it needs to be enumerated. Andy: Part of it is you’re correct that it’s a gray line, but perhaps there may be considerations that aren’t necessarily TSC but are being dealt with at an executive level. Calvin: it’s working toward a solution. We need to be sensitive to executive discussions. Grahame states that education would be in scope. Jean: I have a concern that there is a belief that the core team has gone off and they’re special, operating outside the processes. If there is a list of things you’re doing that you won’t reveal it plays into that feeling. Grahame states that he is feeling much more comfortable as the conversation has provided explanation on what is important for the TSC to know vs. what isn’t. Paul: it’s really about protecting FHIR and ourselves. Jean: the transition plan – have we seen that before? Anne displays document for group to review. Anne to link to transition plan as well as updated plan in these minutes.

VOTE: Opposed: 0 Abstained: 0 In favor: All Lloyd will get us a list in the next two weeks.

• Grahame notes that some ballot comments are US Realm issues and not sure where to send them. Ken asks Grahame to send an email to him and we’ll discuss it at the US Realm lunch. Ken will speak to Ed about it in the meantime. If not the US Realm Task Force, then who? The issue will be investigated.

Calvin suggests that Grahame send us a few of such issues so US Realm/TSC can review real life examples. Adjourned at 6:11 pm.

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .