2018-10-03 Product Family Management Group Meeting

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 Product Family Management Council Minutes

Location: Frederick

Date: 2018-10-03
Time: 7:00 AM
Facilitator Wayne/Austin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


x Wayne Kubick, CTO
x Lorraine Constable (SGB, ARB)
Tony Julian (ARB)
David Hay (FMG)
x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
x Austin Kreisler (TSC)
x Lisa Nelson (CDAMG)
x Brett Marquard (CDAMG)
x Mary Kay McDaniel (PLA)
x Paul Knapp (SGB)
x Grahame Grieve (FHIR Product Director)
x Ken McCaslin (TSC0
x Frank Oemig (V2MG)
Elizabeth Newton (V2MG)
Stan Huff (CIMI)
Galen Mulrooney (CIMI)
x Calvin Beebe
x Sandy Stuart (V2)
no quorum definition

Agenda

  • Invited participants: Co-chairs of TSC, V2MG, CDA-MG, FMG, PLA, SGB
  • Formal name of group
  • Management group authority over balloting and quality criteria
  • Management group responsibilities regarding PSS and publication requests
  • New product family methodology review

Minutes

  • Austin welcomes the group. Reviews agenda. Need to add:
    • What to do about cross product PSSs
    • Sequencing PSSes
    • Vocab coordination of value sets
    • Should we have conference calls? Grahame suggests one around NIB time and one around publication time.
    • Justification for going to ballot – when is a ballot necessary/justified; what does a WG need to show to justify bringing something to ballot, especially over and over?
      • Austin: It seems to be a characteristic of a product family that is early in its life cycle. Lloyd: It’s also a focus that ballot is the only thing that matters.
      • Wayne: Is there a way to define minimum ballot readiness? Lorraine notes there is a document out there that defines that. Austin: We need to look at it and refresh it.
      • Grahame: It’s more a matter of what your goals are. The focus should be on building market solutions, that builds a community. Ballot is a tool, not a goal. But all our paperwork is focused on bringing to ballot. On PSS and NIBs, you should be focused on what is your path to success and to build community. Make it explicitly part of the project process. Lisa: A Notice of Intent to Build. ***Austin: What changes should we make to the PSS? Grahame: It should start with what’s your project's proposed path to building community? FMG has an extra wiki form that you need to fill out that addresses this. Lisa notes there’s a section at the bottom where you lay out your timelines, and ballot is a milestone but you do other work. Grahame: It’s that section where we need to say what’s your timeline towards building community, what devices need to be used, and make it explicit there.
      • Lisa: People need to understand what they’re reviewing and evaluate if the goals were achieved. Austin: One alternative is you have a product family specific PSS. Lorraine: We do need to adjust what people see based on family. Grahame: It could say which products does your project impact, and they could have a section for each.
      • Lloyd: If we identify community engagement objectives and mechanisms, and you are going to ballot without conversation about community, that’s a flag. Austin: A lot of it is the government entities pushing things through. Grahame: Andy Truscott told me that there are 140-something standards on the website that have never been accessed. Austin: Yes, in the period we looked at. Grahame: There is a real problem that we’ve had historically - if you’re just coming here to publish stuff you need to pay more. Wayne: We need to differentiate between the types of standards developers. We treat everyone the same, but it’s a different stamp. Lorraine: We’ve been really bad at looking at a project and saying “no, we don’t want to do this.” The board is becoming more supportive of this concept.
      • Austin states we have a large pay to play group that is going around suggesting that other groups not do what they’re doing and wait until this group produces something and just use it. This is not a governmental organization. Wayne: Again, that’s limited transparency. Lorraine: One challenge is enforcing/discouraging that behavior and knowing when it’s happening. We need to make it clear that you must communicate and accept inputs from groups that overlap. Wayne: MK and I are meeting with some people from Da Vinci to talk about clarifying the communication plan. Lorraine: How do we do proactive prevention? Austin: We need to have another go-round with, for example, Da Vinci about process, as well as Argonaut.
      • Grahame: What’s TSC’s authority here? Lorraine: The process of kicking off a project to produce an artifact is the TSCs area. Austin: We’re moving up the approval deadlines to help address these projects that develop all their material before creating a PSS. Grahame: We’re encouraging them to engage with the HL7 process earlier, even though much of their process happens outside of HL7. We hadn’t explicitly said that was important. Paul: We had in fact reviewed that with Da Vinci. Austin: As some of these big projects start getting content through ballot, the community may realize they need to engage sooner. Grahame: It’s politics rather than ballot review.
      • Lloyd: I also wanted to bring up discouraging affirmatives because someone thinks it’s a good idea even though they haven’t looked at the material. Austin: Yes, the “political affirmatives.” Lloyd; I can put some wording in JIRA that when you vote affirmative, you are indicating that you’ve read the material. Austin: I once proposed a dummy ballot, with the only thing in there being a statement saying “If you’ve seen this, vote negative.” Grahame: You could insist that they make at least one comment.
    • Austin asks V2 and CDA MGs if they have questions/thoughts.
      • V2 has only one question about DMP. They only have 7 people. Working on direction and strategy. Would like to have majority vote so that not one or two are guiding our direction. Want to clarify how we achieve that. Ken suggests taking away abstain. Austin: You could set your own quorum. Grahame: When you abstain you’re actually agreeing with the majority. Austin: You have the flexibility to set that. Paul: If you want to say that an action requires approval from X of the 7 members, you can do that. Austin: Were we looking to add more members to that group? Need to look back at that.
      • CDA: Brett notes that this group should be working on how to coordinate activities. We’re struggling with guide QA. They’re all over the map. FHIR has some built in tooling that helps. They started a registry early. Austin: Publishing is spread across multiple tools. For the present, you could create a checklist; when a NIB is submitted you send it to the people creating CDA content and say you need to have these things done. Brett: What things should we coordinate across and what things are individual?
      • MK: I believe there should be set material in every IG in everything published by HL7. A set TOC that contains the same information in every IG. There should be common language from HL7 across all of the guides. What are the commonalities across FHIR IGs that are different? Needs to be a way of expressly defining, highlighting and showing when you’re not using an HL7 specification. Austin: Those are all specific common criteria across product families. The criteria is supposed to be coming out of methodology groups. Perhaps they need to form a task force to determine the common criteria across IGs. Brett: What’s another commonality? Discussion over publishing. We’re in the process of reinvigorating publishing. Wayne: Quality checklists prior to publication are really important. Need conformance criteria and tooling to automate it, and remind people what they need to do. Brett: We should have a list of shared activities. Wayne: We can set up a confluence page.
        • Name of group will be Product Management Council.
      • Do we want a Zulip channel? Brett: There are 420 entries in the standards grid. Austin: There is a TSC task to address that, and some will roll downhill to product management groups. Lisa; We need to establish an area to move guides that have met the quality criteria. Austin: We are looking at ways to distinguish the good from the chaff, then let them recertify. Wayne; Relevance and quality are both important in that activity. We’re setting up a task force to look at these things and should probably have a liaison from each product family. Ron Parker has also agreed to join.
        • ACTION: Send Anne the name of an individual from your management group who would like to serve on that task force
        • ACTION: Set up Zulip stream on chat.hl7.org and a Confluence page
        • ACTION: Set up meeting in San Antonio (Wednesday Q0 again) and call after NIB/before ballot opening
      • Lisa: We should keep sharing progress being made so we can replicate and reinforce. Lorraine: As we get CDA.HL7.org and others, are we going to a place where we’ve got a URL for each primary standard? That seems to be the case. Austin: Those happened without a coherent strategy.
  • New PSS deadline: Austin notes that they will need to be through the entire approval process the cycle before the cycle in which you intend to ballot. We’ll add a box at the bottom that the TSC states what cycle this project qualifies for. Will start for the September 2019 ballot. If management groups have additional deadlines outside of the regular ballot deadlines, we need to make sure those are communicated. Deadlines for appeals, etc.
  • Management group authority over balloting and quality criteria – you have authority to enforce the criteria developed by your methodology groups. You do have to give fair warning about the criteria. Brett: We have a clear pre-publication pathway but we need to know more about what’s going on in our family pre-ballot. NIBs won’t be on Confluence yet but that’s the goal. Grahame notes NIBs are the highest pain point for him.
  • Management group responsibilities regarding PSS and publication requests: Management groups are a stop in the approval process for both PSSs and publication requests. This is also a point where you can evaluate if the product meets the quality criteria for publishing. Wayne: Do you need a new PSS when you move from investigative to regular project? Dave says you should do a new PSS. Need to clarify that.
  • New product family methodology review – One question is, should we bring new product family proposals to this group for review? Lorraine: The process says the CTO kicks off the review, but it might be this group.
  • Grahame; We’re working on getting the management groups to brief the board on a regular basis. Next meeting will be FHIR, May will be CDA, and then September will be V2.
  • The other question – what do we do about CIMI? Need to make a decision. They’re planning to have an introspective discussion tomorrow Q3.


© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2018-10-03_Product_Family_Management_Group_Meeting&oldid=20527"