Jump to navigation Jump to search
TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes
back to TRAC page
|TRAC Meeting Minutes
Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
|Date: Wednesday, 2016-06-17 |
Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke||Note taker(s): Anne|
|Pat Van Dyke||Regrets||Rick Haddorff||Freida Hall|
|Regrets||Austin Kreisler||Ken McCaslin||Regrets||Melva Peters|
|John Quinn||x||John Roberts|
|Guests||x||Paul Knapp||x||Andy Stechishin|
- Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
- Review minutes of 20150610 TRAC
- Action Items:
- Pat to talk to Paul regarding where the issue of referencing external materials originated
- Rick to circle back with Ken regarding 3-year planning process
- Discussion Topics:
- Referencing External Documents
- Endorsement of External Standards in HL7 Ballot Items
- Endorsement of external standards brought up in TSC this week. John: We ballot it as if it was one of ours, and if it passes, we endorse it as one of ours. Paul: the issue was feeling forced to endorse something we didn’t agree with.
- Referencing external documents – Paul: the ballot material may refer to something that is outside of ourselves – a set of requirements, ISO country codes, etc. There are times when that external site is deleted, updated, changed which affects what was presented as part of the ballot. What do we do in that instance? If we don’t have assurances of continuity and curation, then should we take a copy of that, put it on our site, and point to it there? How do we manage the risk? If they are ANSI accredited, we have reasonable assurance they will treat their material as we do. If it’s legislation, there is a natural expectation of management and curation. But a page on somebody’s site has no such expectation.
- Reviewed GOM on externally developed implementation guides: chapter 18. Discussion on endorsement vs. adoption. Could be generalized to include both standards and IGs, perhaps renamed “Externally Developed Content.” Paul: the GOM seems to restrict us to HL7 putting its logo on it in the case of endorsement and adoption. John: What about when a non-SDO wants something labeled as a standard? Oasis has a HAVE standard that they would like to be endorsed by HL7. Paul: if they aren’t an SDO, then HL7 has to publish it straightforwardly as one of our own and curated by us. There could be another type of involvement where HL7 recognizes a standard that could be noted at the bottom of the page. Not a co-branding. The standard must be developed by another SDO. We would ballot it as usual.
- Melva’s issue would meet one of these three. Inappropriate to go to our community, ask them for their knowledge and expertise, but then ignore comments and give out our blessing regardless. If someone had an affirmative suggestion it’s one thing – a negative major is another. We have a responsibility to our community to treat their votes with respect. Potential rule: if you’re going to bring your standard forward to us for endorsement or co-branding, then we’ll put it through ballot and you will be required to take into consideration and make the changes requested. Paul: amendment - WE have to follow our principles; we can’t confer endorsement if there are negatives that the originator is unwilling to address.
- Example of ballot referring to material from Mayo, Kaiser, Cerner, etc. We don’t control the site. Example of Altarum giving us material for a ballot that we made our own for curation purposes.
- Will continue discussion on July 8th; Anne to invite Paul and Andy to the call on the 8th.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved