From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:00 PM (Noon) (US Pacific Time)
GoToMeeting at
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas



  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Frank Oemig,
  • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck


  • Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair); Ed Tripp (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009); Ravi Natarajan (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009)



  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals were present:Charlie McCay, Frank Oemig, Ed Tripp, Austin Kreisler, Jim Case, Ken McCaslin, John Quinn, Charlie Mead, Ed Hammond, Ed Hammond, Calvin Beebe, Helen STevens Love.
  2. Projects- Incomplete lists - McCay noted that there are projects being worked on that aren't listed in the project list. This point arose at the steering division meetings on Monday evening. This is a positive effective of having the projects visible. ACTION ITEM: TSC has a project for the roll out of the enterprise architecture. This requires a project charter which lists project leader and the skills required.
    • Business case - McCay noted that many projects don't have a business case and suggested that we need to begin providing this for projects.
  3. Enterprise architecture
    • resourcing management of change - McCay indicated that this is architectual vs governance architecture and feels this is likely a two-day-a-week project. While this is likely not a volunteer effort we need to find a funder for this work. McCay suggested that John Quinn articulate this as a risk when he reports on this project. Love suggested this might be accomplished by three-days-a-week effort by the TSC analyst with additional resourcing from volunteers or others.
  4. IP issues related to use of vocabulary - This will be taken off line.
  5. ISO/CEN/HL7 and sharing documents. This process is being worked out (to include a table of all ISO/CEN work that identifies the HL7 WGs to which the projects are relevant). The process needs to be tested but making this information available allows people to see what these other groups are working on and allows opportunity for comments.
  6. Project Templates - This is being approved via eVote. To date, one vote from Technical * and Support Services SD and one comment (from Beeler) have been sugmitted. MOTION to approve the templates carried unanimously.
  7. GOM requirement for 6 month waiting period between successful informative ballot and promoting that material for normative ballot - Beebe reported that this question was raised and he asked for clarification. Van Hentenryck's understanding was that this requirement was taken out with the most recent round of updates to the GOM. She will investigate further.
  8. Value proposition for HL7 engagement - McCay observed a need for an elevator pitch for engaging in HL7 (different than an appeal to become a member of HL7). This is also different from business case for projects issues discussed earlier. Hammond noted that he feels there may be multiple propositions as there are multiple audiences.
  9. Future agenda item - business/clinical track - There was a suggestion that it may be beneficial for Work Groups to identify, by quarter, when they are having business vs clinical discussion. The Work Groups already publish agendas so participants need to be encouraged to consult those agendas. On the other hand, we need to reach beyond the technical audience. ACTION ITEM: McCaslin provides first-time attendee tutorial and will convey that the agendas are published in advance. Ed Tripp noted that RCRIM has three tracks going on simultaneously to resolve some of these issues. Increasingly, their work group attendees are people trying to implement rather than develop standards. We may need to look at RCRIM being a best practice. To that end, it would be useful to provide a code/icon on the agendas to differentiate business, technical and ballot reconciliation discussions. ACTION ITEM: HQ will develop the icons.

Meeting adjourned at 1:35 pm.