T3F - Transitional Technical Task Force
Tuesday June 26, 2007 12:00 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
Beeler, Case, McCay, Quinn, Shafarman
Approved the minutes of June 12, 2007 Conference call.
Status of Restructured TSC formation
Held a brief discussion of the status of nominations for the new TSC structure. To date there have been seven nominations for an aggregate of eight positions. Discussed ways in which the T3F members might stimulate other nominations in order to assure a well-rounded slate.
Assignment of Arden Syntax SIG to Steering Division
Discussed a summary of an e-mail thread between Robert Jenders, Karen van Hentenryck and Woody Beeler in regard to the appropriate assignment of the Arden Syntax SIG in one of the Steering Divisions. This group had been omitted from the original T3F lists to an oversight. Arden Syntax had been listed as part of the "Structure & Semantic Design" group of committees for the original T3F voting last fall. By and large, these groupings were unchanged when they were named as "Steering Divisions" as part of the T3F recommendations for the TSC.
In his e-mail, Dr. Jenders suggested that Clinical Decision Support Technical Committee and its two SIGs all be part of the Structure & Semantic Design Steering Division. During the discussion, the T3F noted that many SIGs are in Steering Divisions other than the one that their "parent" committee is in. The general rationale for assigning groups is articulated in the T3F recommendations for revising the TSC, but that the T3F had, in general, left most assignments as they had been for the T3F elections.
Therefore the T3F agreed that Arden Syntax SIG should be part of the Structure & Semantic Design Steering Division at this point, as it had been last fall.
The T3f reviewed and adopted the Communications plan as laid out in the Minutes of June 12 T3F Conference call, with a minor modification on the item related to PIC. These minutes, as amended have been extracted as a separate document TSC Communications Plan.
The T3F agreed to implement the outbound communications (from the TSC) as T3F communications over the summer, and to lay the groundwork for accepting TSC issues in order that this issues tracking can begin in the fall when the new TSC is assembled.
Quality Issues of Ballot Content
The T3F began discussion of its role and the role of the TSC in overseeing Quality Assurance for the HL7 Ballots. The following are notes from this discussion, which is to continue during the conference call of July 10, 2007. Notes:
- T3F believes that the quality issues of the ballot is/should be a central issue for the TSC (and up until then, the T3F). The T3F should acknowledge that to the Board, and suggest that QA actions should be re-directed through the T3F rather than being initiated at the Board. The T3F should seek to develop a QA delivery plan (with resource requirements) as a set of proposals.
- How build the plan? (What are the current QA issues?) Should there be a "bug list" of QA issues? General agreement that there should and that the T3F/TSC should take this on in order to "de-operationalize" the Board.
- T3F needs to prioritize the responses to these and assign responsibility to staff, or committees, or projects in order to allow rational response to the issues.
- Also noted that tracking must allow for retrospective recognition of issues (such as when users are implementing the specifications). These are not being documented or tracked at present.
- Need an overarching QA "report" based on analysis of the responses to the issues, and on checking (as best as possible) the ballot content.
- Agreed that the Ballot QA process can be managed (overseen) through Don Lloyd's office, but by and large the resolution of these must occur through the offices of the TSC and its committees.
- Challenge will be to provide support where committees are ham-strung by fundamental items, like tooling, etc.
For the next conference call Beeler (in his role in the V3 Acceleration Project) will provide an example list drawn from the last several ballot cycles.