2017-01-14 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for San Antonio WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Pecan

Time: 9:00 AM
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
? Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets Freida Hall Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
? 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 SSD-SD Co-Chair
x Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
? Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
Regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
? Sandra Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
? Pat Van Dyke HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Dave Hamill
x Lynn Laakso
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  1. CTO Update
  2. Essentialism and Organizational Realignement

Q2: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Revision/expansion of withdrawal template
  2. Essentialism and Organizational Realignement, continued

Q3: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Developing requirements for logging issues/comments across standards - Calvin

Q4: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. Review of M&C for CDA product family management group
  2. Extensions for STUs cited in government regulation - language for GOM update
  4. Identifying and communicating essential rules

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

  1. ArB/SGB joint report
  2. FHIR
    • FHIR registry process update

Tuesday lunch

  1. Joint ownership of content
  2. Review TSC Mission and Charter
  3. Review TSC Decision Making Practices

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1: 9 am to 10:30 am

  • Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  • Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
    • Add future of V3 to Q2
  • Meeting minutes from 2017-01-09 accepted via general consent
  • CTO Update
    • Wayne presents.
    • Tooling: Will be proposing 2017 themes to the board – vision, process, simplify, FHIR and BioPharma.
      • Vision: Future of V3 is an important topic. Need vocabulary process to apply to all families; also modeling.
      • Simplify: Need information to be easily accessible.
      • Process: mostly tooling. Goal is to make actual progress on needed changes.
      • FHIR: trying to move ahead on the registry/repository.
      • BioPharma: Trying to bring back into HL7 using FHIR as a carrot.
  • Essentialism and Organizational Realignment
    • Need to start deciding what we’re not going to do as an organization. Important decisions are not coming up to the governance level. Discussion over challenges of being a volunteer organization with outside funding for many projects. We can differentiate projects that are in the HL7 core strategy and those that are coming from outside. There is a social aspect to what we do, too. As we go through tinkering with structure we need to deal with that. Lorraine: We need to encourage the board to be clear about the strategic goals so we can map our work against them. Austin: Part of what we’re seeing with product family is a past strategic goal that we’ve continued working on. Wayne: We need a roadmap of what we’re doing to achieve the vision. Paul: The organization needs to deliver the process. Calvin: HL7 is where divergent interests come together for convergent needs.
    • Must replace assumptions with 3 core truths: 1) I choose to, 2) Only a few things really matter, and 3) I can do anything but not everything. We need to identify what things REALLY matter. Calvin: It’s an eye of the beholder concern. Calvin mentions CCOW as something that Mayo is interested in but not necessarily many others. The organizations that are part of us all have different values and needs – it’s a mosaic but not a singular perspective. If essentialism drives function on an organization where members come in to meet their need, we can’t tell them what their needs are. Wayne: I’m speaking from the perspective of the HL7 vision. CCOW may need to be supported, but it may not be essential to reaching the organization’s ultimate vision. There will be people who will do things that aren’t necessarily important to the overall organization, but we need to identify organizational priorities. Calvin: Will be interesting to see the difference between member goals and organization goals. Austin: Part of the problem is the people at the table change and priorities may not be represented.
    • Keep what speaks to our heart and discard the rest: Wayne notes the word discard is a little strong – what we would do is perhaps put things to the side. Lorraine: This is why we use the process that we do, so people have a chance to give feedback. Ken: We need to communicate our decisions better. Discussion over having to search for things instead of having a common area for decisions. Calvin: The book focused on individual essentialism and it didn’t talk about organizational essentialism. Wayne: Yes, that’s a gap that we need to consider. Our best consensus process is the ballot but we need more than that.
    • Why Simplify? Less intimidating, get more done, foster an increased sense of community, improve sustainability, attract new contributors. Discussion over differences between FHIR participants/participation and the rest of the HL7 products. How do we attract FHIR participants to the larger HL7 community? Jean: We’ve always struggled with how can we become more important to implementers. Why aren’t implementers interacting with the rest of the standards like they are with FHIR? Lorraine: no matter what structure we end up with, we’ll still have the problem of people not knowing where to go to do X.
    • Essentialism and TSC:
      • What are the TSC’s most essential functions?Need to set direction and govern the process. Gatekeeper of projects. Deal with one-offs and exceptions. First place we look at projects across steering divisions. TSC’s purpose was originally connecting the board’s strategy with the technical operations. Protecting our ANSI status. Process governance. Tactical implementers of board strategy (top down), as well as the chance for all of the WGs and SDs to know about each other (bottom up). Central clearinghouse for organization wide issues.
      • What are the most essential WGs and products….what can we combine/cut? Jean: What do we consider the essential function of a WG? If we say an essential function of a WG is X, then we can measure against it. Austin: WG health was intended to measure if WGs are meeting essential functions. Discussion over multiple solutions to a goal and difficulty finding consistent homes for outside projects. May need multiple layers with big groups that are easy to find that then break up into subcommittees/projects.
        • Lorraine: A bunch of WGs are academic knowledge support kind of things. Then we have clinical domain things. Devices are kind of in the middle. Some WGs were put into a particular SD so DESD didn’t get too big. As we restructure we should ignore the SDs during the evaluation process. Wayne displays the wiki main page as a more intuitive WG organization strategy that is easier to navigate/understand. Austin shares history of how/why the steering divisions were populated but admits that’s not how it’s evolved.
      • How do we structure for other groups (governance, users, special interests)?
      • Wayne displays a slide showing an idea of a restructure based upon the wiki main page organization strategy.
      • Timing: Wayne would like to see consensus on something today, socialize in Madrid, and implement around the Plenary. Calvin: With the product family strategy, Structured Docs wears all the hats. May have to divide it. Does product family really become the product management groups? Austin: The BAM gave us three basic groups – governance, management, and methodology. Product families are the management. Methodology is those who identify and implement the methodology. Jean: If a WG isn’t doing what we think a WG should be doing, we also need to figure out what they are doing and where that function fits in.

Q2: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  • Revision/expansion of withdrawal template
    • Dave Hamill and Lynn Laakso here to discuss. Anne displays powerpoint.
    • Recommending a single process to withdraw protocol specifications. Normative standards not re-affirmed shall be withdrawn. Lorraine asks about the definition of protocol specifications – does this not apply to STUs and informatives as well? Dave says yes.
    • TSC is requested to approve proposed new template and extend use from Normative only to include any published or balloted protocol specification including comment only, informative and STU. Lynn states this is a change to the past process – adds new work, especially for v3. Previously they simply disappeared from the website. Wayne suggests adding a cover page stating that it is withdrawn, the date of withdrawl, and that it is no longer ANSI certified. Lynn states she could replace the cover page entirely. Ken asks if we need to remove the HL7 logo; decision that we don’t need to remove it, but we would include a notation that HL7 no longer updates/supports it. Decision that we don’t need a withdrawn watermark on every page.
    • Decision that if there is a replacement version, the product brief page should link to the new version, but also include a link there to the previous versions on a case by case version. Should add request to include previous versions to the template. Decision to add link to expired STUS. Wayne inquires about non-pdf documents? Lynn states we’ll deal with it as it comes.
    • Notification process: Discussion over doing a withdrawal ballot for normative. You either have to reaffirm or have a withdrawal ballot. Austin is approaching the ballot process as notification. Decision that it isn’t necessary to go through that. Lorraine notes that the other outstanding issue is withdrawing joint standards. Decision that the joint partner must be notified. MOU doesn’t currently outline this and ARB is looking at that. Decision to go with the suggestion that 1) product director/MG would approve the withdrawal request, and 30 days prior to withdrawal, the co-chair listserve and joint standards body (ccing steering division and applicable realm if it is a realm-specific standard) would be notified. So 30 days prior notification would go to joint copyright organization, cochairs, TSC, and if realm-specific, to the responsible realm.
    • Roll-Out Process: 1) open wiki comment period after announcing new process; update template, GOM, co-chair handbook, PSS FAQ, project life cycle for product development (plcpd)
    • Discussion that there should be a different process for comment-only as they are not on the standards grid. Ken proposes that once the ballot is complete they are removed from the desktop.
      • ACTION: Lynn and Dave to come back with proposal on what to do with comment-only and update the template in 30 days
      • MOTION: WE accept the process as adjusted: Lorraine/Calvin
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Essentialism and Organizational Realignment, continued
    • Group reviews Wayne’s WG spreadsheet where WGs are organized as they are on the wiki – infrastructure topic groups, health and clinical topics, functional support groups. Lorraine notes that AID requested to be a SIG in the past. Discussion over SIGs and UGs and the historical connotations within the organization. May need to come up with a new term. Community of Interest (COI)?
    • COI would focus on reading/understanding standards, using standards, define requirements

Q3: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  • Essentialism and Organizational Realignment, continued
    • Discussion over Conformance WG and broadening its role. Conformance, templates, vocabulary are umbrella groups providing methodology.
    • Went through infrastructure topic groups and determined what they’re responsible for; recorded on spreadsheet

Q4: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  • Ken will speak at the cochair dinner on DMPs. WGs need to be responsible for approving content even if an external group is doing reconciliation.
  • Ken mentioned that there are some contentious issues going on in WGs and there has been a request for help/support. If issues occur, the recommendation is to be very transparent in the WG meeting minutes in order to get it addressed.
  • Ken will also discuss the withdrawal of negatives for STUs and remind people of the process as described in the GOM.
  • Developing requirements for logging issues/comments across standards – Calvin
    • Calvin introduces topic. No systematic way to capture issues and problems from implementers of our standards.
    • Only FHIR and STUs have standardized the process – each in a different way. Alternatives for moving forward:
      • Expand STU comment page to support feedback capture for Normative and Informative standards
      • Direct Teams to use Gforge as FHIR does to capture for Normative and Informative standards
      • Seek funding and establish a project to create a new, all-standards balloting and implementation feedback process (Wayne notes that this solution includes balloting, not just feedback – could scale back to just implementation feedback)
    • Austin notes we should have one single mechanism for change requests for all standards. Separate processes exist now for 2.x, FHIR, CDA
    • Ken asks what the barriers are to option 2. Responses: Some people don’t like gforge, issues with log ons. Wayne notes Jira could handle it as a single system, although we’re not ready right now. Jean notes that we need requirements from the standards. Austin states we could send to the steering divisions and product management groups a request for requirements.
      • MOTION to send out draft requirements to the steering divisions and product management groups and gather feedback: Austin/John
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Future of V3 (carried over; originally in Q2)
    • On Monday, Jean will discuss this at ARB Q2 with more review on Thursday. Jean goes over slide deck that he will present. V3 is not going away but we need to determine how to support it. Discusses what artifacts are currently being supported by whom the required tooling. The current way the tooling is managed is unsustainable. Reviews support issues for V3 foundational artifacts and newly balloted items. Identifies risk areas. Jean will be gathering data throughout the week. Will bring back a proposal to Wayne/TSC regarding next steps.
  • Review of M&C for CDA product family management group
    • Austin updates the group. PLA is working on finishing the proposed M&C for the CDA product family management group, basing it on the FMG M&C. The question about structure is what hasn’t yet been nailed down. Goal is to have this ready to roll out in Madrid timeframe. Structured Docs will discuss what the next steps are on Monday and what the role of Structured Docs will be. Need to work with SGB on precepts.
      • ACTION: Add to agenda for Madrid
    • As far as PLA work after the CDA product family has been stood up. Will still have the methodology group to work on. Are there more product families after CDA, or is the PLA project complete after that? That question is for the TSC. Goal to make that determination by San Diego.
  • Extensions for STUs cited in government regulation - language for GOM update
    • ACTION: Put in parking lot
    • Reviewed and made edits.
      • MOTION to approve what we have and revisit for 15 minutes in Madrid: Austin/Jean
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Identifying and communicating essential rules
    • ACTION: Add to future agenda

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