2016-05-23 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 2016-MM-DD
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 x Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli x Freida Hall, GOM Expert
. . . . Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters . Russ Hamm . Calvin Beebe Regrets Andy Stechishin
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Gora Datta Regrets Sandra Stuart
. . . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .


. . . . .

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
  2. Review action items –
    • TSC Nomination Committee (John, Calvin, Russ, and Sandy) to recruit nominees for open positions
    • Begin work on multi-year planning items discussed at WGM:
      • Simplification of location of meeting notifications, minutes, agendas, and other documentation: Melva, Jean
      • Evaluate WG/SD structure: Melva, John, Russ
      • Evaluate opportunities for member/non-member engagement: John, Lorraine, Russ w/Anne assisting
      • Standards organization hierarchy: John
      • Standards sharing across realms: Jean, Giorgio
      • Standardization of processes across WGs: Sandy, Melva, Ken, Tony, w/Anne assisting
        • Freida has shared initial comments
      • Strategy for PSS management throughout the lifecycle: Jean, Dalvin, Dave, EST
  3. Approval items for this week's e-Vote:
  4. Discussion Topics:
  5. Discussion topics held over from WGM:
    • Good implementation practices - Lorraine, Wayne
    • Standards Governance Board Update - Paul
    • Report on HQ change from DSTU to STU - Lynn
  6. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  7. Open Issues List
    • Wayne to present TSC principles on endorsements to EC
    • Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications:
      • EST/Staff to determine where retired standards will reside
      • ARB to investigate what to do with joint standards
    • Substantive change:
      • Consult with Karen/Freida to determine the best place(s) to post the new definition and socialize
      • Austin to carry forth the definition to SGB for support/policy guidance

Minutes

  • Housekeeping
    • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Agenda review and approval -
    • Approve Minutes of:
      • 2016-05-07_TSC_WGM_Agenda
        • Freida has shared questions/comments to be reviewed
          • Re: standardization: Freida notes there are templates. Ken explains we want an appendix in the cochair handbook containing a checklist for before, during and after the WGM. Freida notes there is a checklist but perhaps it is not as robust. Freida's comments can be used by the group working on this item. John R. notes that we also talked about refresher training for continuing co-chairs. Melva states we should beef up what we have and promote it. Ken: if we created a section under resources and were more specific it could help. John notes that the co-chair utility page doesn't contain everything. Melva notes that some of the things are in the TSC wiki; Ken notes that we're moving those things to HL7.org. Melva brings up that the WG meeting request page is in an inconvenient location as well.
          • Other issue is the discussion on withdrawal. Is this just for Normative, or is it normative, informative, and STUs? Retirement applies to everything, but specific withdrawal applies to ANSI only. Freida states we were hoping for a single form that we could use for any type or withdrawal. Paul: I don't see why we couldn't. Would make it easier for everyone. Paul: STUs naturally get withdrawn when they expire but they should be formally expired as well. Freida: Lynn had some ideas on how to do that in the master grid and should be involved with the EST conversation. Freida: Is withdrawal equivalent to retire? Ken: Yes. Withdraw from ANSI, retire on HL7 website.
          • ACTION: Freida will talk to Dave regarding a single form
      • 2016-05-08_TSC_WGM_Agenda
      • 2016-05-11_TSC_WGM_Agenda
        • All meeting minutes accepted through general consent
    • Cancellation of Memorial Day Call (US Holiday)
      • Ken wonders who will be available? John, Paul, Lorraine, Melva, Giorgio. Decision to cancel 5/30.
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Project Approval Request of Evaluation of Alternative Tracking and Wiki Tools at Project Insight 1257 and TSC Tracker 10049
      • Wayne describes project. Is simply an evaluation. Ken notes that folks are jumping the gun by stating the move is happening. Lorraine: Agrees with the scope but that's not what is being reflected in minutes; also, we need to write down what the criteria are for evaluating the tool. Wayne: as far as ballot evaluation, Lloyd has stated those. Perhaps the minutes should be corrected. Paul: A number of issues were raised but didn't have a sense there were a set of requirements of what a new balloting tool for HL7 would look like contained within that document. Wayne references the report created by Lloyd following the gforge pilot. Paul: Recollection is that the material inside the summary report was more anecdotal. Not clear on how the comparison between Jira and tracker would give us requirements for a tool. Discussion over how Gforge came about. Gforge met a need and tracker came along with it. There doesn't seem to be a document out there saying what the requirements are. Have tended to jump over that step and don't want to this time. Concern that this evaluation doesn't answer that question. Requirements should be included in this document in the deliverables. Paul: why is this THE product? Why are we only evaluating one product? Wayne: the CTO has prior experience and it's free; feedback from the community is very positive from others who have used it. Paul: as an organization we tend to collect products and that is part of the concern. Lorraine: we also need to look at the people processes of how we roll things out. Discussion over timeline and use on the next ballot - Melva and Paul express concern. Wayne asks if we can simply agree that we're not going to use it until we're done with the assessment. If it adds value, we'll just do it when we're ready. Paul: there's technically ready and then there's organizationally ready for people to consume it. Ken: this project is to do an evaluation; it would take a another project for implementation.
        • MOTION to approve with the addition of requirements and evaluation criteria by Paul. Melva seconds.
        • VOTE: All in favor.
  • Discussion topics held over from WGM:
    • Good implementation practices - Lorraine, Wayne
      • Came out of an issue of vulnerability with FHIR. Was handled very well with communication from FHIR Team. Ken: Should we have guidance on how implementers should validate lack of vulnerability? Lorraine: Reference implementations aren't ours. Ken: We should be really clear to implementers that they should test, evaluate, and in some cases make changes to support their environment to avoid vulnerabilities. Paul: WE should make it clear that what we provide is not designed to be production ready and they are use-at-your-own-risk-products. Wayne: We need to have a disclaimer statement and a notification process for when we're made aware of a vulnerability. Wayne has it on his to-do list.
    • Standards Governance Board Update - Paul
      • Met on Friday Q1/Q2. Addressed a number of things. Went though and took a look at the PSS for the FHIR Repository process and evaluated the rules as to who is allowed to host, co-sponsor, or approve projects. Result was to make a recommendation that FMG rather than FGB be the lead on the FHIR Repository project. FGB will vote to stand down and EST will vote to co-sponsor today. SGB met with HTA to work on coordinating activities. SGB will put together the precepts that overarch across all the families. HTA will bring forward their requirements that we expect to see coming forth this week or next week. Lorraine: We also worked on our DMP, SWOT, etc. at the Sunday meeting. Will finalize on Wednesday, Do not need to bring it to TSC.
    • Report on HQ change from DSTU to STU - Lynn
      • ACTION: Anne to add to next call
  • Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  • Open Issues List
    • Wayne to present TSC principles on endorsements to EC
    • Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications:
      • ACTION: Anne to add to June 6 call
      • EST/Staff to determine where retired standards will reside
      • ARB to investigate what to do with joint standards
    • Substantive change:
      • Consult with Karen/Freida to determine the best place(s) to post the new definition and socialize
        • Freida reports that Karen suggested either resources/WG balloting or resources and procedures with the GOM and bylaws. Are we going to do cleanup of places where conflicting definitions should reside? Should this just be applicable to normative? Ken: we were talking about substantive in everything. Paul agrees - we are defining substantive change regardless of ballot level. Review of the WGM meeting. Freida: we need to further clarify the motion because the motion only applies to normative.
          • MOTION to rescind the motion from 2016-05-08 and rewrite it on 2016-06-06 by Tony; second by Paul.
          • VOTE: all in favor
      • Austin to carry forth the definition to SGB for support/policy guidance

Next Steps

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


© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-05-23_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=17160"