2016-09-17 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for Baltimore WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location:

Date: 2016-09-17
Time: 9:00 am Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Woody Beeler TSC Member Emeritus
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Gora Datta HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x Russ Hamm HL7 FTSD Co-chair
Stan Huff HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler Adhoc Member
x Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Sandra Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
Pat Van Dyke HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Mary Kay McDaniel Guest, PLA lead
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1:

  1. Review/Update
  2. Essentialism, strategic planning

Q2:

  1. Tooling Inventory/Architecture - Andy
  2. Simplification

Q3:

  1. Organizational structure alignment concepts
    • WG to SD links/communications
    • US Realm Steering Committee
    • Product Families
  2. Simplify and improve

Q4:

  1. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  2. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  3. Next steps
    • Simplification of location of meeting notifications, minutes, agendas, and other documentation - merged with Standardization of Processes Across WGs
    • 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
    • Strategy for PSS management throughout the lifecycle: Jean, Calvin, Dave, EST

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

  1. ArB
  2. BAM
  3. FHIR
  4. SGB
  5. IHTSDO Developer License Announcement (Jane Millar)
  6. European eHealth projects (Giorgio)

Thursday Q0

  1. Issue of V3 maintenance schedule (continuous vs. periodic)
  2. Scheduled updates:
    • (September) Review TSC SWOT


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1:

  • Called to order at 9:01 am Eastern
  • Minutes from last meeting via general consent
  • Essentialism, strategic planning
    • Wayne presents on Essentialism. Also presented to the Board at the retreat.
    • Concept espoused is doing less, but better – “the way of the essentialist.” Distinguishes the vital few from the trivial many.
    • Discussion over application to organizations vs. individual, as well as HL7 organization vs. individual members.
    • 63 WGs listed in HL7. 251 active projects. 387 standards products in the catalog. Discussion over how to examine/determine what is essential here and at what level. Lorraine notes that as we implement the BAM the product family management groups will begin assist with that.
    • Finding the essentials: 1) Use more extreme criteria, 2) Ask what is essential and eliminate the rest, and 3) Beware of the endowment effect (if I didn’t already own this how much would I spend to buy it/what is its value to me)
    • What is most essential to the HL7 organization? Discussion over whether that decision is bottom up or top down. Wayne: TSC should develop the culture that supports that decision making process. Need to be better at communicating strategic priorities. Lack of published strategic plan. Need a process to align projects with strategic priority. Sandy notes that perhaps TSC should be helping the board develop strategic priority.
    • What is essential to the WGs? What is more important – the WG or the project? WG is essential to making the project work because they have the technical expertise. WGs provide framework/governance for the projects.
    • What is essential to HL7 volunteers?
    • What is essential to HL7 customers? Do we know who our customers are? Many volunteers are customers, but the majority don’t volunteer.
    • What is essential to the TSC?
      • What are TSC’s most essential functions?
      • What are the most essential WGs and products?
      • What are the most essential governance functions?
      • What can TSC offer that will make HL7 do less, better?
    • Current CTO themes: Vision, simplify, FHIR, BioPharma, Process
    • CTO strategic goals:
      • next-generation standards roadmap based on FHIR and the best of v2, v3, and CDA, in:
        • single vocab mgmt process
        • migration path from v2, v3 and CDA
        • simpler more productive and maintainable tooling environment
        • essentialism and simplicity in practice – strategy is knowing what you’re not going to do

Q2:

  • Tooling Inventory/Architecture – Andy (Anne will get presentation from Andy and link)
    • Andy presents tooling catalogue and technical architecture project. There are 9 functional areas, 6 product areas, 49 distinct technologies. 9 roles exist for associated individuals and orgs.
    • 4 categories give a numeric value of 0-100:
      • Risk, quality, sustainability, usability
    • Cumulative scores reflect risk level as good, risk, and critical
    • 131 tools: 89 internal. 38 support core processes. 2 are not internal – Grahame’s FHIR server and Frank’s V2 database. Reviews stats broken out by area and standard.
    • Discussion over Zulip – not included in current inventory. It’s an open source tool that they’re running.
    • Reviews processes and tools conceptual model, overview diagram of web area, and publishing streams diagram. V2 and FHIR are not published directly by HQ.
    • Reviews recommendations. Tooling catalog should replace the numerous current locations for tools and services info. All new projects with tools must submit the data for entry into the catalog; existing entries will be regularly reviewed by EST.
    • Ken asks if TSC agrees with this strategy. Group agrees. Ken proposes schedule for socializing/implementing. Andy thinks we could announce new process in January. Wayne will announce tooling inventory at this co-chair dinner. Discussion over notifying of intent to create a new tool. Ken asks if ES would put together a checklist regarding what is a tool, who needs to maintain it, etc. (ANNE – send Andy reminder). Need process to register a tool before it’s done. Structured Documents issue re: schematrons.
      • ACTION: EST to put together tool checklist
    • Assessments recommended to be done annually. Wayne will ask cochairs to review their tools on Monday.
    • Tool listing can be viewed at hl7-tools.herokuapp.com
    • Discussion over how much weight risk was given in the analysis (answer: 25%); suggestion that perhaps it should be higher.
    • Gora notes trademarks should be added. Also remarks that we should be sensitive to people being listed as contacts, both past and present.
      • ACTION: EST to assess risk assessment algorithm
    • We need to try to put together an architecture for tools we work with and reduce that space to track them all in the same way.
    • Reduce customization to reduce support and risk
    • V3 tooling and publication issues
    • We currently publish v3 under ANSI continuous maintenance; may want to transition to periodic maintenance.
      • ACTION: Add to Thursday agenda
  • Simplification
    • Wayne reviews strategic questions regarding simplifications to be addressed next quarter.

Q3:

  • Discussion over co-chair dinner agenda. Decision to replace 5 minute in-person reports with a consent agenda with reports posted in the agenda at least before SD meetings. Dave to still do January presentation of changes to PSS template.
  • Wayne checked with Karen and we need to have a v3 decision before the next ballot.
  • Organizational structure alignment concepts
    • Product Families
      • PLA was asked to stand up product line for CDA, which was put on hold before organizational structure and alignment conversation. Question regarding PSS shopping – would it occur if we had better alignment? Group theorizes that shopping is a human activity vs. an organizational activity. Ken states we need to be more formal about processes; Austin states that the CDA product family was intended to meet that goal. Gora asks about what defines a project and why there is only one sponsoring WG.
      • Paul states he doesn’t see shopping as a barrier to setting up product families. Shopping has been done because appropriate groups have declined; issue is people and decisions. So then the option is to find someone to help or not to the work. When people shop, we should require them to get in line with scope.
      • Calvin: Shopping is a symptom of problems that we have; it’s a resource problem: who has the domain knowledge and the technical knowledge. Trying to do both requirements and development in a single committee – this underlies our resourcing issues.
      • Lorraine: When you’re looking to figure out where a project fits: if you look at responsibilities of managing a product family, that’s one of the key parts of that role.
      • Ken: What is the role of the WG (infinity)?
        • Day-to-day administrative and project management function.
        • Help projects link in with processes.
        • Pool of domain resources.
        • Domain, organizational, business, and technical knowledge (not all WGs have all three).
        • Cooperating within defined mandate that determines their scope.
        • Seeing that all interested parties make it to the table and give appropriate input.
        • Ballot governance. Maintenance of completed artifacts. Initiating new projects.
      • What is the role of the project team (termed)?
        • Developing the deliverables.
        • Execution of the project.
        • Communicating and reporting back to the WG so they can be transparent.
        • Scope expression.
        • Management of ballot process (governed by WG via GOM) including communicating to WG.
        • Cross-domain WG collaboration as well as external collaboration.
      • What is the role of the steering division?
        • SSD-SD came together to lump things that were structured.
        • Currently is perfunctory review and communication.
      • We need something between the WGs and the TSC. Discussion over cross-domain WGs. Discussion over domain-specific things in Structured Docs. Paul notes FHIR-I should be in SSD-SD and Financial Management should be in DESD. Ken: We need to find a simple process to get to the next step – we need to be easier to understand, more clear on what our relationships are.
      • Discussion regarding how to approach simplicity.

Q4:

  • Organizational structure alignment concepts, continued
    • US Realm Steering Committee
      • Is now under the purview of the board. There is overlap so we need liaison. What is the international equivalent? The affiliates.
  • (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
    • One opening on the ARB; two will not be renewed.
      • MOTION to reappoint all class of 2016 members for a 2-year term except Steve Hufnagel and Bo Dagnall: Wayne/Calvin
      • Discussion: Will we replace the members? A request for applicants to join was published.
      • VOTE: All in favor.
  • (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
    • ORC has been disbanded. Can remove from future agendas. Discussion over organizational relationships and current priorities for collaboration as defined by the Board:
      • IHE relationship is a top priority. IHE has not always been good at facilitating collaborative work across the association. We want to improve the relationship, and how can we make that work better? Needs better coordination from both sides.
      • HIMSS/HIMSS Europe is another group that we need to prioritize our relationship with.
      • FHIR Foundation
      • ISO is not one of the top 5, currently, but we will continue to participate. Gora expresses that we need to re-evaluate stepping back as the relationship is important.
    • Management of MOUs is now happening at HQ. What about when someone wants to connect with HL7 – where to we direct that query? Need to get points of contacts posted.
  • Product Family/Product Line:
    • Continued from last quarter on how to approach simplicity.
  • Next steps
    • Simplification of location of meeting notifications, minutes, agendas, and other documentation - merged with Standardization of Processes Across WGs
    • 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
    • Strategy for PSS management throughout the lifecycle: Jean, Calvin, Dave, EST
  • Parking Lot:
    • Shopping PSSs
    • Publishing Risks
    • Other single person risks


Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • EST to put together tool checklist (i.e., what is a tool, etc.)
  • EST to assess risk assessment algorithm on tool catalog
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-09-17_TSC_WGM_Agenda&oldid=17600"