2017-09-13 TSC WGM Agenda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TSC Wednesday meeting for San Diego WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes
| HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Aventine E |
Date: 2017-09-09 Time: 12:30 PM | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation |
| Calvin Beebe | HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair | |
| x | Giorgio Cangioli | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| x | Lorraine Constable | HL7 ARB Co-Chair |
| Regrets | Jean Duteau | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| x | 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 |
| x | 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) |
| Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No) | ||
Wednesday lunch
- Meet with GOC re: Considered for Future Use ballot disposition
- Any Issues/Updates from Monday's Steering Division Meetings
- HL7 Product roadmap
- UTG PSS
Minutes
- Wayne chairing
- Roll Call
- Guests: Karen Van Hentenryck (GOC), Hans Buitendjk (GOC), Mary Kay McDaniel, Brian Postlethwaite, Ken Kawamoto, Bob Dieterle
- Bob Dieterle and Brian Postlethwaite here to report that they’re not doing an OOC ballot for their directory project.
- Meet with GOC re: Considered for Future Use ballot disposition
- Karen: Some people felt it would be a replacement for Not Related, but unclear. Wayne says we could keep not related and also have considered for future use. Tony: One of the issues is that not related specifically states that it will be included in the next release. Considered for future use means it might or might not be. Karen: Not opposed to having both as long as we differentiate. Reviewed SGB comments with GOC response. Hans: We have vote and we have dispositions. Issue came up with FHIR R3 and the way dispositions were handled in tracker since publication is handled differently. Discussion over how to communicate to WGs giving them clarification and instructions on how to handle ballot reconciliation using the language currently in the GOM. Once we revise the process in the future, we’ll re-advise. Hans asks about plans for balloting in the future. Wayne states that the next step for the online ballot process is to receive the requirements for such a process. Should have an idea by January. Freida: Step 2: We need to compile the instructions into one place/document. Step 3: Online project re: ballot revision.
- No decision at this time on considered for future use
- ACTION: Draft communication to WGs giving them clarification and instructions on how to handle ballot reconciliation using the language currently in the GOM.
- GOC discussed flow of decisions and agreed with what TSC stated on Sunday. Decision is that GOC will approve or reject/return/suggest rather than rewrite.
- VMR issues
- Paul: CDS had developed a suite of VMR specifications. Concerns raised in TSC about those specs and how they aligned, so a task force was set up to review. Recommendations of the task force were at two levels: what they should do to get into STU ballot, and also what they should do when taking it normative. Materials were adjusted to meet the STU ballot requirements. In parallel, they continued to develop materials to go towards normative, some of which were delayed. Multiple extensions were requested on the STUs but we could no longer extend them; they were therefore asked to let it lapse or go normative. Decision was made to go normative. They were asked if they met the requirements of the task force, which they affirmed. Original task force was asked to review the current ballot; it was discovered that the material met the STU requirements but not the normative requirements put forth by the task force. Paul voted negative on it. Our choice is to let it go ahead anyway, or withdraw the ballot and agree to extend the existing STU, or withdraw the normative, don’t renew the STU, and go forth with normative later. Lorraine: One of the primary places the logical model is used is used in other CDS specs. It has a ripple effect. Wayne asks Ken K. which option would be least burdensome to the WG? Ken responds that it would be to let it go ahead and put explanation/disclaimer on the published material. Lorraine: Are there concerns with just the ITS or also the templates? Paul notes that Kai had issues with the templates as well.
- MOTION to move the review of the ballot to ARB so they may come back with recommendations: Paul/Austin
- VOTE: All in favor
- Wayne turns chair over to Ken
- Paul: CDS had developed a suite of VMR specifications. Concerns raised in TSC about those specs and how they aligned, so a task force was set up to review. Recommendations of the task force were at two levels: what they should do to get into STU ballot, and also what they should do when taking it normative. Materials were adjusted to meet the STU ballot requirements. In parallel, they continued to develop materials to go towards normative, some of which were delayed. Multiple extensions were requested on the STUs but we could no longer extend them; they were therefore asked to let it lapse or go normative. Decision was made to go normative. They were asked if they met the requirements of the task force, which they affirmed. Original task force was asked to review the current ballot; it was discovered that the material met the STU requirements but not the normative requirements put forth by the task force. Paul voted negative on it. Our choice is to let it go ahead anyway, or withdraw the ballot and agree to extend the existing STU, or withdraw the normative, don’t renew the STU, and go forth with normative later. Lorraine: One of the primary places the logical model is used is used in other CDS specs. It has a ripple effect. Wayne asks Ken K. which option would be least burdensome to the WG? Ken responds that it would be to let it go ahead and put explanation/disclaimer on the published material. Lorraine: Are there concerns with just the ITS or also the templates? Paul notes that Kai had issues with the templates as well.
- Any Issues/Updates from Monday's Steering Division Meetings
- Melva raises question from one of the WGs about all the work they did on their M&C and SWOT. They feel on hold at this point. We need to let all of the WGs know what to do now. Austin states we’re still on hold except for Structured Docs. Ken: Is it appropriate to just let them post their updated M&Cs now that they’ve been approved by SD?
- MOTION to allow all M&C updates to be processed: Austin/Paul
- Paul asks if this applies to any WGs considering merging or moving? Ken: Even if they move, it likely doesn’t change their M&C.
- VOTE: All in favor.
- ACTION: Steering Divisions to go ahead and process updates.
- ACTION: Add other potential SD names to discussion on upcoming call
- MOTION to allow all M&C updates to be processed: Austin/Paul
- Melva raises question from one of the WGs about all the work they did on their M&C and SWOT. They feel on hold at this point. We need to let all of the WGs know what to do now. Austin states we’re still on hold except for Structured Docs. Ken: Is it appropriate to just let them post their updated M&Cs now that they’ve been approved by SD?
- HL7 Product roadmap
- UTG PSS
