2015-10-03 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for Atlanta WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2015-10-03
Time: (9:00 am Eastern)
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Vice Chair
Regrets 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
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
Regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
? Sandy Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair-Elect
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair (HL7 Board Chair-elect)
x Guest – Austin Kreisler
x Guest – Catherine Chronaki
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

TSC Homework Assignments:

  • Review the Multi-Year Plan
  • Review TSC SWOT

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. TSC Chair Vote - John/Karen
    • Refer to section 09.01 of the GOM on the TSC and its elections (beginning on page 24) as needed
  4. Review of SGB progress/PLA status update - Paul
  5. (Sept) Review TSC SWOT

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

TSC Review and Planning

  1. TSC SWOT part 2
  2. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  3. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
    • Current liaison: Melva Peters
  4. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

TSC Project Review

  1. Strategic Initiative Discussion
  2. Naming/numbering of FHIR and other releases (Paul)
  3. Notification requirements for DSTU updates; dot releases vs. re-ballot

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Architecture and Tooling:

  1. Tooling
  2. Report on referencing external documents - 40 minutes (Paul, Pat)
  3. GOM changes to meet ballot naming convention requirements update (Freida)

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Austin Kreisler, Catherine Chronaki
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Agenda accepted. Ken explains the process with the SWOT review
  3. TSC Chair Vote - John/Karen
    • Karen explains nomination process. Ken McCaslin is running for another term.
    • Calvin nominates Austin Kreisler. Austin accepts the nomination
    • Austin not a current member of TSC and must be elected an ad hoc member of TSC
      • MOTION by John R to make Austin a member of the TSC as an ad-hoc member consistent with running for TSC chair. Second by Calvin. Discussion: Impact on quorum.
      • VOTE: 5 in favor. 0 against. 0 abstained. Austin is an ad-hoc member of the TSC.
    • Ken and Austin running for chair. Will do a closed ballot. Voters: Chair of HL7, John Q. 1 from each SD, each international rep, and 1 vote from ArB. Voters will respond to Karen with their votes via email, subject line “TSC Chair” tomorrow by 4 pm Eastern. Karen will report on voting at tomorrow’s evening meeting.
    • Refer to section 09.01 of the GOM on the TSC and its elections (beginning on page 24) as needed
  4. Review of SGB progress/PLA status update - Paul
    • Paul is not yet present so we will move to Q3
  5. (Sept) Review TSC SWOT
    • Members review SWOT and add blue dots for things we can keep and black for things we can delete/edit from the SWOT. This is related to the multi-year planning process. John R. brought a recent article about SWOTs that states that:
      • a strength is a positive factor in your environment or organization today.
      • An opportunity is a potential strength in the future.
      • A weakness is a factor in environment or organization today.
      • A threat is something that could develop into a weakness in the future.
  • Strengths:
    • Clear focus on delineated governance and management activities:
      • Comment: Continue to improve
    • Respected, highly experienced membership
      • Merge with committed membership. Respected, committed, highly experienced membership.
    • Committed membership
    • Support from board, HQ, and Work Group members – half black/half blue
      • This is also in the weakness category. Group discussion over where it actually belongs. Group questions support from WGs and board, more favorable about support from HQ. Discussion over what support from WG means.
      • Melva proposes to make “support from HQ” a strength and to take support from HQ out of the weakness category. Group agrees to change
    • Open, transparent, and responsive
    • Proactive
  • Weaknesses
    • Limited time
    • Limited control over resources
    • Support from Board, HQ, and Working Group but still sometimes we don't get the support we need from the Board and members
      • Removed HQ and end of sentence starting with “but still…”
    • Process for bringing in external proposed standards.
      • Edited to reflect “Lack of effective process…”
    • Linkage with Strategic Initiatives
      • Will be part of Sunday’s meeting
    • Suggested addition: Local implementation guides governance. Discussion over whether or not that is TSC business or not. Suggestion to add lack of conformance to threats.
  • Opportunities
    • Business Architecture Model development offers improved Governance and Management to match existing Methodology strengths
    • Change to Intellectual Property licensing at no cost
    • Increased uptake by national programs
    • Clearly designate our product line and product identification
    • Emergence of new and contemporary technology including FHIR and semantic web ontologies
    • Leverage new membership benefits for IP management, help desk, user groups, and conformance testing, in dealing with technical issues.
    • Provide mechanisms to allow vitality assessment throughout the organization; define criteria for trigger events: including ability to define processes for assessment, provide strategic and tactical guidance to the EC and Board.
  • Threats
    • Creating overheads without visible return
    • Improve Product Quality
    • Lack of confidence in standards management creates vacuum for Profiler/Enforcer creating their own healthcare interoperability standards
    • Increasing numbers of mandates coming from the US Realm
    • Lack of clear governance surrounding new member benefits e.g. user groups, help desk
    • Keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
    • Lack of adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage our standards and the resulting profiles that are created.
      • MOTION to approved edited SWOT by Lorraine; second by Melva
      • VOTE: all in favor
  • Discussion over how weaknesses will be used in multi-year planning meeting tomorrow. Melva suggests piloting the multi-year planning process: WGs identified as initial pilots - PHER, Project Services, Pharmacy, O&O, and EHR.
    • Will there be a broader pilot or comment period after the initial pilot?
    • Rick will share the process and plan tomorrow and we will revisit after that presentation after everyone’s input and advice
  • Reviewed weaknesses to see what should be added to multi-year plan.
    • Added clarifying statements to weaknesses list
    • Calvin suggests we continue to address these one at a time on future TSC calls
  • SGB/PLA update:
    • Paul reports progress being made on the Standards Governance Board launch. Slate of candidates have been approved by TSC save one. First face to face meeting will be tomorrow Q4. First international candidate did not accept the position but Rik Smithies has accepted the nomination.
      • MOTION by Paul that TSC approve appointment of Rik Smithies to SGB. Calvin seconds.
      • VOTE: all in favor
    • SGB will meet this week on an introductory level with FGB and HTA. Brief outline will be presented at co-chair dinner.
    • Now that PLA has launched the SGB, a few things will happen.
      • FGB will transition to report to SGB and potentially the groups will become one body in the future.
      • PLA will pilot two additional product families: V2 and CDA; formalize existing product family management groups for each; and identify product family methodology groups for each.
      • Timeline: Oct-Jan: Planning. Jan and forward – review and socialize plans. February and forward – formalize additional product families.
  • FHIR naming/numbering of releases:
    • Dot releases are an unballoted update on a good, and as things go to further ballot it should be an integer. FHIR is looking to call their next ballot DSTU 2.1 instead of DSTU 3, which goes against our formal naming structure. The rationale is that it is a more limited release.
    • Ken notes that we could change the rules, but there isn’t time at this point before January.
    • Calvin asks if this is an issue only associated with DSTUs? In normative space it isn’t an issue because there are no unballoted updates.
    • Austin states that in DSTU dot releases, it doesn’t reset the trial period – it remains on the original integer track. Discussion that this is actually a gray area…you could potentially change the date on the pub request. No formal guidance.
    • Some of the FHIR maturity levels restrict the level of change that can be made.
    • MOTION by Paul to modify guidance on DSTU naming to allow for a major release number, a minor release number, and revision number (major.minor.revision). Revisions are set by instance of publication and don’t change the lifecycle of the specification. We should amend our guidance to align with that. Second by Lorraine. Discussion over how this relates to normative standards and also errata publications. Will run this by FGB/FMG for comment before voting on it (potentially on Wednesday). Paul will work on some examples for review.
    • Discussion over FHIR projects being approved for ballot by TSC but FMG not being aware that the material was expected by the WG to be included.
  • Naming Conventions issues:
    • no PI ID in naming convention. Is that part of the ballot name?
    • Is it 1st or first?
    • Recommendation: Project identifier is not part of the ballot name
    • Recommendation: use 1st, 2nd, etc.
    • Recommendation on realm: Put realm after product name before ballot level
    • Discussion over putting the notation box into the GOM
    • TSC recommends adding the naming convention in list from to the GOM.
  • Confirmation of ORC liaison assignment. Melva is current liaison.
    • MOTION by Calvin to confirm Melva’s reappointment as ORC liaison. Second by Pat. Amendment that Melva will look into the continuation/status of the work of the ORC.
    • VOTE: all in favor.
  • Strategic Initiatives:
    • Group agrees to give it some thought and come back to it at a later meeting.
  • SWOT Threats:
    • Continued discussion and editing. Made change to wording of #2 – changed “improve” to “assure.”
      • MOTION to approve the change to “assure” by Calvin. Second by Woody.
      • VOTE: all in favor

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .