2015-11-09 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2015-11-09
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian . Jean Duteau Regrets Austin Kreisler
x John Quinn . Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters x Woody Beeler x Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp . Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
. Russ Hamm . . Sandra Stuart (co-chair elect)
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote . x Lynn Laakso x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .

. . . . .



  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2015-11-02 TSC Call Agenda


  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Standards Maturity Clarification - Ken (15 minutes)
      • Related open motion from Atlanta meeting: 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. Paul will work on some examples for review.
    • White Paper Publishing Process
      • PIC representatives here to discuss peer review process and need for project scope statement
    • Multi-Year Planning: Rollout with proposed WGs (see project approval request in approval items below)


  1. Review action items
  2. Approval items:
  3. Approval Items from last week's e-vote approved 5/0/0 with DESD, SSD-SD, ArB, T3SD, and Giorgio voting:
  4. Discussion topics:
  5. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  6. Open Issues List


  • Meeting minutes accepted via general consent
  • Standards Maturity Clarification
    • Ken: Discussion at AMIA meeting revealing confusion around standards and standards terminology - specifically with DSTUs. C-suite people don't understand difference between a standard and a draft; they understand the word draft to mean that it's not a standard. All of our standards as they're in flux are still a standard. We need a way to talk about our standards without differentiating.
    • Ken displays examples including FHIR, Arden, RIM, CCOW, V2, V3, LRI IG, and CDA. Discussion over the disparate ways we name these and how to move forward. Woody asserts implementation guides can't drive standard naming. Woody: the only thing that is ANSI approved is a normative standard and those are the only things we can claim are standards. Ken: if that's so, then how do you get people in the c-suite to agree to participate on a draft? Woody: the federal government is perfectly happy to do so. Ken: Chuck is experiencing push back; people are trying to differentiate what we mean. Paul: with draft, there is no assurance that it won't change. That's what concerns people. Version numbers shouldn't be used as indicators of maturity. Ken: Then how do we do a better job managing this, and how do we get people engaged who are not dealing with HL7 and help them quickly come to an understanding of where we are? We need ways of identifying paths for our standards; some people who are not very technical would consider an IG a standard, and that's part of the confusion. Woody: we need to remove the implication that IGs are standards. Paul: anything that is regulated or required by somebody feels like a standard, even if it isn't one. Freida: we need to consider what we've got in the pipeline based on our recently approved naming convention. Ken: We need to figure out how make this work in the marketplace; draft implies it's not a standard. Paul: we could use any other word than draft but it doesn't change what stage it's at. Woody states that you can't use draft in isolation to describe it - you have to use draft standard for trial use. Ken will ask Chuck to join us next Monday for his feedback. Freida: one thing that is happening is there was a mindset of vendors that they're not implementing anything until it's normative so that they don't have to make changes. Paul: I'm guessing that people are balking because DSTU or draft connotes that it hasn't stopped changing, so they want to wait. Renaming may not change that behavior.
  • January Ballot e-vote: Anne sent out e-vote; Ken describes process. All to review and submit vote to Anne for compiling and discussion on next week's call.
  • White Paper Publishing Process: no representatives present
  • Multi-Year Planning:
    • What is the best way to roll out to the WGs? Melva: Rick thought things were on hold as there was a question on what we're rolling out. Review of the PSS revealed that groups may use their current process, the spreadsheet tool, or the gForge template created by Tony. Melva states we should find WGs to pilot each of the tools but questions letting them continue on using what they've used in the past. Ken agrees that they shouldn't use what they've used in the past; group agrees. Should we give them the option between spreadsheet and gForge? Ken states we should suspend using 3 year plan as a WGH indicator until we get this new process running. Rick: between now and May WGM would be the pilot. Question over whether that is enough time. Ken: so we'll make May a touchpoint to decide if we're going to continue to pilot or roll it out. Discussion over how to handle 4/5 year planning items.
    • MOTION by Melva to approve PSS with recommended changes (on timing and allowable tools); Paul seconds.
    • VOTE: all in favor

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Ken to invite Chuck to next TSC call to discuss Standards Maturity/DSTU Clarification
  • All: complete e-vote on 2016Jan ballot approval
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.