2018-01-28 TSC WGM Agenda
Jump to navigation Jump to search
TSC Sunday meeting for New Orleans WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes
|HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes
Location: Fulton - 3rd Floor
|'Date: 2018-01-28 Time: 5:15 PM|
|Facilitator: Wayne Kubick||Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer|
|?||Calvin Beebe||HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)|
|x||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative|
|x||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ARB Co-Chair|
|x||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative|
|x||Floyd Eisenberg||HL7 DESD Co-chair|
|x||Russ Hamm||HL7 FTSD Co-chair|
|?||Pat Van Dyke||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|
|Regrets||Austin Kreisler||TSC Chair, SSD-SD Co-chair|
|x||Wayne Kubick||HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)|
|x||Ken McCaslin||Adhoc Member|
|x||Mary Kay McDaniel||SSD-SD Co-chair|
|x||John Roberts||Adhoc Member - GOM Expert|
|x||Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ|
|x||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair|
|Regrets||Andy Stechishin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair|
|x||Sandra Stuart||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair|
|Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)|
Sunday evening Agenda Topics
- Ken facilitating in Austin’s and Wayne’s absences.
- Lloyd here for the FHIR report. Brett Marquard observing. Ben McCallister observing.
- Revised ballot process proposal
- Lloyd here to discuss. If TSC approves, then he would like to introduce to cochairs on Monday night and use for May ballot. GOM changes would be necessary because reconciliation would not be done on spreadsheets; would shift to something like “spreadsheet or other TSC-approved process.” Ken notes that other pilots have occurred without pushing through GOM changes first – would likely require EC approval.
- Lloyd: Because this is going to be first normative ballot for certain things and because an ANSI audit is coming soon, we want to make sure any process we follow does follow proper process. Don’t want to have our first normative ballot to have ANSI say it wasn’t valid. Paul: One thing that needs to be done in that regard is make sure that every WG who is putting material forward record a motion to have their materials go forward. Lloyd: FMG is the authority that approves the ballot to go forward; the WGs to content development and reconciliation and don’t vote for things to go to ballot or not. Paul: But in any other process they would have a vote to go to ballot, but the WG should make a decision that material is ready to go to ballot. Lorraine notes that some WGs such as OO approve their material for ballot. Adding that approval step for normative especially would be useful. Lloyd: So prior to opening of ballot but after content is live on the website, we have been having WGs responsible for IGs validate that the content is what they want it to be, so now we need to engage WGs responsible for core content to do the same thing.
- FHIR Report: They are focused on balloting. 320 comments on core in the last ballot. No concerns regarding normative candidates for May ballots. Reminding folks of tight timeline on Monday night. This week we’ll be making sure that content is complete as well as QA spreadsheet that tracks maturity levels complete. Connectathon was largest ever. Doing post surveys to gather feedback. John asks if they are aware of any content that WGs have been surprised by in the ballot? Lloyd: There were some BR&R draft resources that were published that FMG has not approved a resource proposal for and some were surprised it was permitted; however, it is permitted under FMG processes. Sometimes we want feedback on things before we approve. They will be level 0 draft. Melva: There isn’t even an approved project for those resources and the committee did not vote to put them in – one individual did so. Lloyd agrees there needs to be an approved PSS, and if there is not one by the next ballot we will yank it. Lloyd will take to FMG to add to the verification process.
- Proposed Revised Ballot Process: This has been in progress for a year or more. Proposal is to migrate from gforge tracker to using Jira as a tracker tool and have direct submission of ballot comments using Jira rather than using spreadsheets. A number of reasons for doing this include Jira being more capable than gforge in enforcing business processes and rules; allows for bulk changes; allows for better reporting and control. Currently, spreadsheets come in to gforge and we have to go through and clean the content for every column in the spreadsheet to make sure it’s properly formatted. It took 27 hours to do this for this ballot’s 320 comments. Problems include the massive amount of time spent, as well as being forced to edit balloters’ comments (ANSI may not approve). Jira also provides a number of benefits to balloters. If they are submitting directly, they’ll Essential Requirements. Lynn, Karen, and David Johnson on staff are comfortable with the proposal from a balloting, ANSI, and technical standpoint.
- In terms of cons – there will be changes in how things work. One is that preparing your ballot offline and coming online 5 minutes before close and posting it won’t work as well anymore. Second is for affiliates and org members that have named voters and people who submit who are not named voters, the process shifts. It is still possible for organizations to collate responses from numerous people within their organizations and vote all of those dispositions as a block, but it means that everybody who wants to make a comment either submits it themselves, or one named voter submits everything under their own name. After that it is possible to do a “same as” vote. “On behalf of” voters can submit their comments directly into the tool, or they can submit their feedback via spreadsheet/word doc/email to a centralized contact, but the submitter is the one on the hook. Ken: Do we still use ballot desktop to register people? Answer is yes. Floyd: Today if I’m a member I can comment on the ballot desktop. If I’m not a member I pay to do so. But now if I can do that, does the paying to vote go away? Lloyd: The difference is how obligated is to HL7 to address the feedback. If you provide feedback as an ad hoc commenter, we are not obligated to listen. If you are a member or you pay to vote and you vote negative, then your vote counts towards the percentage required to pass. That’s the difference between those who pay vs. those who just throw in comments. Lorraine: If you have a large number of comments, it will be more difficult than the way it was managed before. Will we have Jira reports to help manage? And did we look at the service desk feature? Lloyd: Service desk is installed. Lorraine notes we have a Jira developer now as well. Melva asks about affiliate process. If we let everybody submit comments and not capture them in spreadsheets, then someone would have to go in and tag those to be from HL7 Canada? Lloyd: Yes, Canada would have to decide what it wants to put its votes behind. You could do a query from Jira of comments against the ballot and compare to membership list. Melva states she doesn’t have access to the membership list. Lloyd notes that if HL7 doesn’t know who the non-voting members of an organization or affiliate are, Jira can’t know. There will be a coordination requirement for organizations and affiliates. Discussion over how it works now vs. how it would work with the new process. The fundamental process is the same; the change is instead of running an amalgamation algorithm on a spreadsheet, you’re running a report and saying this is what I’m voting on. Paul: One difference for an affiliate is it’s a completely different review process that you’d need to use. Lorraine: We’re doing the same fundamental function but it’s slightly harder. Would need to keep that in mind as we design it. Jean: We need to make sure we’ve got a report so affiliates or organizations can easily find and summarize the comments they need to review. Brett: It’s a new process but there are some benefits in terms of working off a single source. Floyd: I hear Lloyd saying that he wants us to look at approving him to take it forward to the community for further comment.
- Ken: So they’re asking that we try this for the May ballot. We can deal with the GOM issues at a later time. Unless we have a serious reservation, one of Lloyd’s questions is that he wants to start socializing this. Is there anyone that has a problem with Lloyd socializing this with the rest of the community?
- Wayne arrives, making quorum
- Lorraine wants to hear the rest of what Lloyd has to say about the document. John: We will in effect for some period of time, have two ballot processes. Mary Kay: Is it enough notice to do this for the May ballot to use this for FHIR? Paul: So between now and April we have to implement this and the first test is the normative FHIR ballot? Not sure that’s the best thing to do. Why wouldn’t we pilot it on something that’s not normative?
- Lloyd states we can split the decision into whether the process can be socialized and whether or not the pilot can go forward. Three decisions: 1) can Lloyd share it tomorrow; 2) will TSC exercise the process to allow it to be used in May; 3) will it actually be used in May. Tonight just looking for item #1 to be approved (sharing with community). Melva: I think this has to be shared soon. No issue with sharing, but we are running out of time and concerned with considering a May implementation.
- MOTION to move forward to sharing with membership for review: Mary Kay/Jean
- VOTE: All in favor
- MOTION that TSC will investigate what governance steps are required to go forward in a pilot state: Floyd/Mary Kay
- VOTE: All in favor
- Mary Kay: How do we gather the feedback in an organized way? Lloyd: My intention is to include much of, but not all, of the sections of this document when sent to the membership as a Google doc/PDF. People will be invited to make comments in the document or send comments by email. Lloyd will collect comments and add to Google document. Will be sent to FHIR list, cochairs list, member list, international council after Monday night announcement. Need to also make sure that the EC gets it.
- Revised ballot process proposal
- Adjourned at 6:27 pm Eastern
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|