From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Saturday January 10, 2009 9am-5pm

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

  • Q1
    1. Meeting Admin -
      • Roll Call: The following individuals were in attendance:
        • Chair: Charlie McCay
        • CTO: John Quinn
        • Domain Experts: Austin Kreisler (primary), Ed Tripp (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: Ravi Natarajan
        • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
        • HQ: Lynn Laakso, TSC Project Manager
        • Invitees: Jane Curry (Tooling), Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair), Charles Jaffe (CEO)(Q3), John Koisch (ArB)(Q1)
      • Accept Agenda
        • Agenda - move minutes approval later to take advantage of John Koisch’s time.
        • Discussion topics to consider:
          1. Emergency Care: keeping minutes outside of HL7
          2. SOA-TC activity not towards HL7
      • Approve Minutes from concall-20081215 and concall-20090105 - tabled
    2. ARB items - Charlie Mead, John Quinn
      • Discussion of Architecture rollout
        • The ArB created “rough” impact statements from November f2f meeting at [1]
        • Slide comments:
          1. acronym definition
            • EPF: Eclipse Process Framework
            • RPF: Rational Process Framework.
          2. Point clarified on slide by Ioana: conformance is to a specification, “compliance” is regulatory – beware of using “compliance” incorrectly.
          3. T3SD moving under ArB would be a major impact on organization. Reorganization of organization as topic for TSC (Ed thinks too big an impact for one alpha project, what is its enforceability.)
          4. Slide with ovals: major concern –
            • Top oval: explicitly expect reference level in congruency with lower level development. Explicit methodology for how to start with functional model and end up with messages, consciously working together rather than informally.
        • NCI, Canada Infoway are rolling with the SAEAF architecture already. How does this impact inside the HL7 organization, what is the change management process – it’s not thought this would be manageable by a volunteer body.
        • It was generally accepted that the dynamic model of core principles needs rewrite, perhaps replacement by this framework.
        • OHT has a kickoff this afternoon for their architecture. At the OHT BOD in December conversations were conducted that recommended OHT build compliant tools, not build architecture, but comply with other architecture specifications, e.g. SAEAF.
        • General comments were as follows:
          • John Koisch remarked that somebody needs to mind the reference stuff (there are 2 or 3 flavors of reference stuff). SOA and CDA don’t use InM and MnM resources, (facilitators?). John said that the T3SD is mechanism to facilitate governance and policy (not necessarily enforcement, but facilitation). He asks, when does ArB begin reviewing an actual architecture; when does the little r become big R. John stated this is, in some way, already how people are working eg. Structured Documents. He proposes the TSC take 3 projects, give them project rooms at meeting and get project structures based on SAEAF. E.g. SOA not providing reference architecture used to build service (reference framework). Much of this implementation may self-organize. It is probably correct that it is a thought framework rather than org framework. TSC could create some seed groups that people would migrate to.
          • Ravi posed some questions for consideration: what is the impact on participating affiliate organizations? What are the criteria for success for alpha project? How does this define success of SAEAF? How is it validating SAEAF framework? Charlie McCay suggested we follow up on Sunday.
          • Austin noted that 40% of boxes in ovals are cross functional; each WG meets as mini project management office. If we schedule meeting space on projects rather than each wg, it might cut down meeting coordination difficulty. He suggested the next WGM allocate space based on projects. Austin identified that Structured Documents already operates as mini PMO, and suggested that all WG should be doing so. What is needed is to expand those mini PMOs that are working, moving the organization to project orientation rather than WG orientation.
          • Ed Tripp commented that everything we do starts with a business need; how does this go from the initiation by business need to how it gets into this structure. Example: Row 3 is line of business stuff, which defines business need; from there it goes before project review committee and then go… where? How to get to other rows?
          • Ed Hammond suggested it would be a mistake to educate membership as a body; educate domains independently of each other. Break it down in small pieces to make it happen, introduce in small groups. Alleviate resistance to change. How it goes to the membership is critical.
          • Calvin described the challenge in transition and timing. Domain experts come in on a project basis; doesn’t fit matrix well. With tooling, this could be more successful. Body of DE come to HL7 for projects; no need for sitting body when they will just come in to work on a project and then go away; creates transient domain groups.
          • Woody saw it as less disruptive: OO in row 2, PA working in row 1, 2, and 3. It’s more a thinking framework rather than prescriptive framework, however the bullets slide should be rid of the point on T3SD under ArB as it will cause fear mongering. Woody says ArB should be reviewing what the core principles document is missing. ArB suggested the top row needs a feedback loop from the bottom row for completion. Woody asked how would we present the question to committees “where do you feel you fit in this matrix?” when it could be seen as vertical ovals, egg-shaped, or a barbell with activities in two nonconsecutive rows?
          • Helen notes that Lillian (Bigham of HQ) would be ‘on life support’ after such a reorganization of meeting room assignments. Some areas will be disruptive. Need project plan on how this rolls out as determined in Vancouver. CDA/Structured Documents may be good example how to roll out. Don’t understand T3SD under ArB.
          • Charlie Mead reminds the group that the ArB is appointed by the TSC. TSC should manage adoption of architecture within WGs. TSC must form a project to manage rollout - need to define that activity and get someone to run with it. Architecture rollout task must involve those in architecture development. The Rollout Project reports to TSC, and should be presented as a TSC activity, not ArB. T3SD committees work towards the architecture. TSC project rolls out SAEAF. Charlie further suggests that the TSC challenge is to show some activity towards implementation project. Mead suggests we need the architecture rollout project run by the TSC, not the ArB. He reminded us that the TSC has failed to initiate that activity since Vancouver.
          • Charlie McCay tabled the remainder of the discussion until Sun evening.
  • Q2:
    1. Tooling Update: John Quinn
      • Slide presentation was given. BOD says Tooling is a top priority. The organization is at risk of overly dependent state. All the tools described, whatever tools they are/will be, need to move into the new tooling architecture, whether Eclipse or otherwise. The remainder of discussion was tabled to Sunday night to answer the question: What does the TSC have to say to the BOD on this issue?
    2. Review open issues list
      • 827: Project Approval: Cardiology ACS DAM R2 - This is playing at the second level of the SAEAF “stairway to heaven”, and if you can claim conformance at that level, then it becomes a legitimate project. The clinical community deemed this as a way to define their requirements, those data elements and their flow within the system. DAMs create trigger events and define data exchange, and capture function of clinical setting. The question remains, who are the implementers? Patient Care had agreed it is useful and non-redundant but then committee chairs changed. Another question remained of how to measure the claim of conformance by a DAM… Is this an alpha project for SAEAF rollout? MOTION by Austin to approve project, seconded by Ioana was unanimously approved.
      • 596: Recommendation if EHR profiles are normative or informative: It was noted that other products exist besides messaging like CCOW, so why not EHR profiles. You can define normative by the voting process by which it is approved. It becomes a property of the artifact, not whether / how one tests its conformance. Motion open on the floor seconded by Austin, and unanimously approved.
        • In further discussion, Woody requested a summary from EHR wg on anticipated extent of profile balloting.
        • The question was raised whether the TSC should make a blanket statement on what normative means, with balloting. Woody further recommended this discussion be revisited for any new products by HL7 outside our normal. We must ensure respect for those standards published by HL7 by other organizations. Someone needs to write a proposal on normative meaning for approval by TSC and bringing to the BOD. The Review process, even for informative documents, adds value. ISO has three levels: standards, technical specifications and technical reports. What is HL7’s middle ground? Draft proposal by Woody and Austin (with input from Calvin, Ed Tripp and John Quinn).
      • 457: Guidelines on work group meeting minutes; Ed Tripp says we should define when minutes are expected to be published, where to publish etc. Helen reminds the group that it is part of cochair training. Where are the rules for this? Minutes, where you post your notice of meetings, conference calls schedules etc. There are rules for WGM but not for CC. Charlie McCay says we need to have those rules written, and suggested it be added to GOM. Ken to bring to PIC, issue assigned to Lynn.
      • 747: Develop plan for rollout of enterprise architecture: Discussion tabled to Sunday night
      • 749: Review role of steering divisions: Will discuss with architecture
      • 751: Assign a review and completion date for items on issue tracker: Lynn to get dates from assignees at end of WGM
      • 754: Review and approve updated DMPs from PIC: add to agenda for Sunday night; TSC members must review. Recommend all committees get theirs changed through attrition of their regular review cycle.
      • 820 Role of TSC in reviewing MOUs: Woody says TSC should be aware and have opportunity to have comment. MOUs are the responsibility of ORC. Question is, for example, if we have an MOU with W3C, what is the WG responsibility to take advantage of the relationship? Ed Hammond reported that the ORC is working on a matrix of MOUs with groups, relationship (membership) to group, affiliate agreement etc. We need to identify the groups having strong relationship, and TSC should validate the liaison with that group and receive any updates from the MOU group. For each MOU, further need to identify the impact on the WG. Assign to Lynn to add, to the MOU matrix, the table on the impacts to WG, filling in from information from SD.
      • 746: Board policy on vendor demonstrations: TSC would approve the draft policy. Assign to Lynn to review with Jane and establish the status and what remains to be done.
      • 410: Timely harmonization changes to RIM Vocabulary and RoseTree: process is labor intensive, and had a day’s discussion devoted in interim meeting in November. There were two special contracts, one to get catch up done, another to get November harmonization done more timely. TSC perspective: is it resolved? Three people using the tools to implement the harmonization changes. There are more than that who understand the process. We are no longer running cycles behind, and are currently up to date with this new contract. Issue is closed.
      • Time for issues expired; come back to the remainder Sunday night.
  • Q3
    1. TSC Business - Charlie McCay
      • TSC working practices - Conf calls remain 11 am Mondays. Suggested monthly issue triage call… projected monthly issues summary by SD, 1st meeting of month agenda item to review status of issues.
        • Suggested that Lynn should host gotomeeting call, need HQ subscription; get id from Dave Hamill.
        • Other committees would love to have this option. Ed supports SecondLife. Electronic Services (ESC) should be looking at it. Austin wants it broader. Be aware that VA has the most difficult firewall to ensure your tool of choice works for them. SecondLife has classroom ($1.50) and voice – ESC to investigate for other HL7 committees.
      • Review TSC Mission and Charter -- how are we doing against it?
        • Suggestion to change “reduce competition and conflict between the components of the working group”, to “identify” conflict. Have we made progress on the mission towards actually reducing the conflict, by the process of exposing it? E.g. dueling Assessment ballots (battles) not reduced; lab and OO are working more closely, common product model working together but will expose even further conflict. The TSC would like to see a plan, once a conflict is identified, to resolve the conflict, from the conflicting workgroups. TSC should develop a skirmish list. As a parent, we want to know when the kids are fighting; not to wait until one is crying or the neighbors complain. ACTION ITEM: Austin will take an issue to explain differences between the Assessments ballots, though TSC approved both scope statements…
        • SD cochairs should be “checking in on the kids” and bringing frustrations to the TSC for the skirmish list, especially a couple weeks before ballot deadlines. When issues are raised they should go to the tscadmins list for visibility.
        • Ravi: part of TSC mission to watch stakeholder relationships? Work products and contributions: number 2, not “to the board”, global replace technical committee with work group.
        • Clarification: Changes to our own mission and charter need no ratification: TSC is self-defined.
      • Review TSC Communications Plan and the Draft Revised TSC Communication Plan
        • It was suggested to remove the communications plan reference. Determined we should allow for a (semi) anonymous method of communication but the primary method is through its elective representatives.
    2. Marketing: communication plans and value propositions - Chuck Jaffe
      • TSC Report:
        • Finances; preliminary 2008 revenue $4.5M is $372k OVER budget. Expense $4.12M and $258k UNDER budget. Preliminary cash balance $3.86M, 19% more, $631k more than budgeted. Year end cash reserves > 12mos. Some will offset Tokyo, where we’re expected to lose $350k.
        • Market development and communications group; 3 contractors in different sectors; ’09 target $1M new revenue stream.
        • Financial planning taskforce; Profiler-Enforcer Organizations. US Dept HHS, Obama multibillion $ in HealthCare IT. There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether we need a U.S. Affiliate to accomplish this, re: localized terminology requires administrative body. Deferring remainder of discussion for Sunday.
        • Request definition slide to define profiler-enforcer…
        • Direction of financial planning committee is unclear based on legislation coming in 7-10 days. Cannot predict right now.
        • Ed Tripp finds thousands of references on NLM with no acknowledgement to HL7. Chuck Jaffe says the ‘traditional’ marketing contractor is looking into those sorts of things.
        • TSC newsletter; not come over to Lynn yet. Helen will edit but hasn’t time to nag people to submit articles. Ioana suggested we also use HIM magazine.
  • Q4
    1. ISO issues: Audrey Dickerson (HIMSS/ISO)
      • US Tech Advisory Group harmonizes consensus, for our one vote per country; no negative ballots/comments to be withdrawn. Can vote Affirmative with comments, negative with comments, or abstain: One vote per country. Has a mirror group of subject matter experts in each country (e.g. HL7 affiliates).
      • HL7 interacts with new work item proposal but not committee draft
      • HTML is better way rather than Word to present standards. EHR-FM had a problem.
      • An important presentation for TSC to understand processes in ISO we are trying to align with… what do we do?
        • Audrey recommends on our charter, with roles, add “maintenance of ISO/HL7 standards”. Cannot hand off, it must come back to HL7 and marry the ballot projects at that point. RIM was first ISO/HL7 joint standard; we’re going to try to ballot it annually but will this work with ISO… [ISO has systematic review; we can use that form of ballot, but they won’t see their comments or changes reflected for another cycle or two]
        • TSC needs to be aware of the issues but needs to have a WG report back to us. Need stronger liaison with the WG with joint coordination with ISO. Mead and John Quinn have spent a lot of time the last six months on ISO harmonization. WG that talk to other SDOs are not going through the CTO; need to keep those lines open. JIC says all communication to joint SDO should go through CTO but people know people directly and we don’t know there is a negotiation going on. Audrey has spreadsheet of all standards going through the HL7/ISO process –she will send to Lynn as it is updated. Thanks acknowledged to Audrey for individual efforts to ensure this joint effort is brought out, attending HL7 meetings and presenting to us and the BOD.
        • TSC needs to determine the right venue for further HL7 discussion of joint balloting issues. What are the HL7 issues around ISO/CEN harmonization… need a task force that reports to TSC? Should be a standing item on WGM agenda.
        • Joint work should go to TSC for approval; currently goes to the Board? Need to add to process document for ISO/CEN relations.
    2. Roadmap update: Charlie McKay, John Quinn
      • Of 27 current priorities, John illustrated the top 12.
      • TSC responsible on priority ranking 4, ID 23, establish criteria for prioritizing new projects.
      • In asking the Board for their ranking, they didn’t use the Roadmap items. Tooling came to the top, funding also at the top.
      • ACTION * Get from Mark, the pdf’ed version of the updated Roadmap [2][3], put on the wiki and email link to the cochairs (not just tscadmins); ask for plan of impact on their wg’s activity, to me, to summarize for the TSC by 1/21. Reference will be on new PSS.
      • ACTION: 3 year plan summaries, map to Roadmap, need column for strategy not just roadmap task.

Adjourn 5:05 PM