Difference between revisions of "2014-01-18 TSC WGM Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
|width="40%"|'''Affiliation'''
 
|width="40%"|'''Affiliation'''
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
+
|x||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ArB Vice Chair
+
|x||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ArB Vice Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Freida Hall||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
+
|Q3||Doug Fridsma||BOD member
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Chuck Jaffe||HL7 CEO (member ''ex officio'' w/o vote)
+
|x||Freida Hall||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Tony Julian||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
+
|x||Tony Julian||HL7 ArB Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Austin Kreisler ||TSC Ad-hoc member
+
|regrets||Paul Knapp||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ
+
|regrets||Austin Kreisler ||TSC Ad-hoc member
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSC Chair
+
|x||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Don Mon||HL7 Board Chair (member ''ex officio'' w/ vote)
+
|x||Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSC Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Chair
+
|x||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
+
|x||John Quinn||HL7 CTO (TSC member ''ex officio'' w/vote)
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||John Quinn||HL7 CTO (TSC member ''ex officio'' w/vote)
+
|x||John Roberts||HL7 DESD Co-chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||John Roberts||HL7 DESD Co-chair
+
|regrets Q1,2||Andy Stechishin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Andy Stechishin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Pat Van Dyke||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Pat Van Dyke||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Karen Van Hentenryck || HL7 HQ Associate Director
−
|-
 
−
| ||Karen Van Hentenryck || HL7 HQ Associate Director
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || ||  
 
| || ||  
Line 145: Line 143:
 
==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:==
 
==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:==
  
−
<!--
+
#Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
−
#Visitors:
+
#Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
−
#Agenda:
+
#[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7732/11309/%44%65%63%69%73%69%6f%6e%73%53%69%6e%63%65%4c%61%73%74%57%47%4d%2e%78%6c%73%78 Link to Interim decision review since last WGM]
−
#Minutes approved by general consent
+
#Team Exercise - Karen Van
 +
2014JanTeamBuilding Life Boat PPT
 +
#*Three behaviors learned from the exercise to help TSC resolve challenges identified
 +
#**Provide logic from reasoning behind asserting one's position
 +
#**Ensure everyone is heard and respect different linguistic and mental processing rates
 +
#**Reassuring when working on Task Forces in different subgroups when our results were so similar;
 +
#**willing to compromise when prevailing wisdom is not in your own favor
 +
 
 +
===Q2===
 +
 
 +
What is working and should not change
 +
*e-Votes (favored by: Giorgio)
 +
*WGH and PBS Metrics (favored by: Ken, Freida, Calvin)
 +
*Splitting governance, management and methodology
 +
**Lorraine notes that while it's not working right yet the thought process is helpful
 +
**Woody notes the segregation of distinction with management and governance but not enough players to split them in every circumstance
 +
*Staff support (favored by: Ken, John R, John Q)
 +
*Saturday TSC WGMs (favored by: Melva)
 +
*Weekly conference calls (favored by: Pat)
 +
*Flexibility to allow WG to collaborate in their way
 +
**Giorgio notes the boundary how governance over WGs and independence of WGs is subject to change
 +
*Project approval (favored by: John R, John Q)
 +
*FMG - Jean disagrees
 +
*Balloting and publication (favored by: John R, John Q, Tony but challenged by FHIR)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Top choices:
 +
*Staff support
 +
*Saturday TSC WGMs
 +
*PBS Metrics
 +
*WGH Metrics
 +
 
 +
Project approval, FMG had 0 votes.
 +
 
 +
What should we be working on?
 +
*Well established set of procedures for establishment of new product family (Short-Term)
 +
**Establishing gatekeeping mechanism - what are the criteria for "a good fit" for an HL7 specification (Short)
 +
**John Q describes differences between historical process and today's effect of the lack of technical involvement on the Board.
 +
**Jean notes we must define the role of the TSC in conjunction with the development of governance among many groups. John Q notes the pressure of the market is the impetus for the change. Board as arbiter of power, has been entry point for these external specs and has executed tactical decisions instead of delegating to the TSC. John Q notes Halamka and Humphrey's statements on FHIR are walking papers.
 +
**Focus on value for our customers (Short and Long-Term)
 +
**Processes for project approval (Woody asks if the US Realm Task force is solving the problem for now?) (Short and Long)
 +
**Concept consistency between product lines using SAIF principles (Long)
 +
**Understanding and operationalizing definitions of product line and product family (Short)
 +
*CMETs (Short)
 +
*Expanding volunteer base (technical experts) (Long)
 +
*FHIR (Short)
 +
*Support of John Q and Ken as they represent TSC on the Board (Pat and Austin). Pat notes the speed of communication coordination needs to improve. (Long)
 +
*Better coordination between TSC and the Board (Long)
 +
*Clearly defining and then educating those that would bring specifications to HL7 on project / product processes (Short)
 +
*Define optimal organization structure (TSC/SD, TC and SIGs) (Long)
 +
*Consider the international perspective
 +
**Jean recounts CAN affiliate experience taking a long time and significantly changed the specifications that they brought to HL7, compared to these US projects that come in nearly unchanged.
 +
**Giorgio suggests we find a mechanism to bring affiliate group activity into the WG at HL7 International with more recognition of HL7 Affiliate contributions and their needs.
 +
*Joint Board/TSC meetings (Long)
 +
**Freida suggests a joint session with the BOD and TSC to discuss strategic and tactical level differentiation. (Long)
 +
*Figure out US Realm space (Woody) for guidance to WGs. (Short)
 +
**Jean notes the % of non-US attendees from CAN is decreasing. The US Realm involvement is turning off international participation.
 +
**John R notes a group from CDC brought some projects through PHER and then disappeared.
 +
*Rules around bringing work into HL7 (Short)
 +
*Other SDOs (Pat notes WEDI and X12 had similar problems with UDI) having same issues, so sort out opportunities to adapt to changes and requests of the marketplace. (Long)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Ken describes his vision:
 +
*collaborative - expect him to ask how others think something should be handled, try to ensure all voices are heard
 +
*not chairing the US Realm Task Force - needs to be handed off. He doesn't think the TSC should own that.
 +
*He will delegate items and just expect that you will bring a recommendation back, but not necessarily attend the meetings. Pat describes the impact it would have on TRAC as an example.
 +
*exercises will guide everyone's understanding on what the TSC goals will be
 +
*Top down vs bottom up? Need to be both, agile in responsiveness to the community, confidence in decision criteria whether saying yes or no to community and stakeholder demands.
 +
*Expanding volunteer base is a critical problem
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
*Result of e-vote: did not meet quorum, 4/0/0 with 2 Affiliate, Ad-hoc, and T3SD voting.
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/2833/11306/%48%4c%37%5f%50%75%62%6c%69%63%61%74%69%6f%6e%5f%52%65%71%75%65%73%74%5f%51%75%65%73%74%69%6f%6e%6e%61%69%72%65%2d%52%65%73%70%6f%6e%73%65%5f%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%2e%64%6f%63%78 DSTU Publication request] for ''HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Questionnaire Response Document, Release 1'' for SDWG of SSD SD for 24 months at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=977 Project Insight #977] and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2833 TSC Tracker 2833]
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/2832/11305/%48%4c%37%5f%50%75%62%6c%69%63%61%74%69%6f%6e%5f%52%65%71%75%65%73%74%5f%51%75%65%73%74%69%6f%6e%6e%61%69%72%65%2d%46%6f%72%6d%2d%44%65%66%69%6e%69%74%69%6f%6e%5f%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%2e%64%6f%63%78 DSTU Publication request] for ''HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Questionnaire Form Definition Document, Release 1'' (balloted as Structured Form Definition Document) for SDWG of SSD SD for 24 months at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=976 Project Insight #976] and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2832 TSC Tracker 2832]
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/2793/11314/HL7 Project Scope Statement TB 2014-01-07_.doc Project Scope update] for ''Tuberculosis Domain Analysis Model, Release 2 '' (balloted as Structured Form Definition Document) for CIC of DESD at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=371 Project Insight #371] and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2793 TSC Tracker 2793]
 +
 
 +
Adjourned 12:35 PM
 +
 
 +
===Q3===
 +
Re Convened at 1:34 PM
 +
 
 +
Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:
 +
*TSC task force on Help Desk and Conformance testing - Austin had been concerned that some WGs were overburdened with the support tasks they would be assigned. Would there eventually be a WGH metric on their ability to handle Help Desk requests, etc? Responsibilities and expertise of contractor for the Help Desk function discussed.
 +
**Tier 1 support by contractor is only a short finite period of time. The contractor is there to develop the questions and first answers. They are not contracted to remain first line of support once their prescribed content is developed.
 +
**Help Desk with judgments and best practices going back to the domain committees is one issue but the conformance testing it's a different effort.
 +
**Melva notes she and Jean and Joginder are working on the conformance testing developing artifacts for the pilot. At this time they're not sure what it means to the WG going forward but they are working on Immunization so they're working with PHER for now.
 +
**Ken asks Jean, Melva and John Q to report back on issues they discover with the Conformance Testing. Lessons learned and next steps on Conformance testing are part of the contract - ACTION ITEM: request review at the March 17 telecon.
 +
**Help Desk contract bid closes Monday so we can't make decisions yet on help desk. Adding FHIR and other product lines into the Help Desk app may change how the questions are referred. Pat recounts what they do at another SDO. Melva describes how CHI's Standards desk operates and indicates that technical interpretations go to their listservs. JohnR notes they get questions from the listservs and the contact information from presentations. This would be another source of such questions. Ken notes that corrections on some answered questions on the listserv also works well.
 +
**Lorraine asks about timeliness and volume. Calvin notes the volume has not been an issue. The process they follow is causing unease as some implementers are using individual cochairs as touchpoints representing the whole committee. They are reviewing DSTU comments more carefully now, as a committee as well. Calvin suggests it might follow such a process. Categorization and process for review of change requests in V2 cited as an example.
 +
**Project request to build feedback pages like DSTU comments for informative and normative has not received priority due to lack of bandwidth. So the listserv is currently the only tool. Lorraine notes that Lloyd is not confident the DSTU comments page will not meet their needs to track and resolve issues the DSTU. Calvin notes that the DSTU comments page got some enhancements that made it much more useful. Lorraine asks where to find what the enhancements were?
 +
**Melva suggests that this process determination needs to be part of the help desk contractor deliverables. Lorraine notes that the way the work for the Help Desk contracts are being chunked out may not provide an easy way to include such recommendations in the contract deliverables.
 +
**Doug Fridsma joins and describes their efforts in Jira by Atlassian and Confluence which is related to reporting issues in the manner of software bugs. They get 50 to 60 per week and 90% are level-1 responses to where they can find xyz in the specification. When they get questions they cannot answer on the technical end they forward them to SDWG. Launching QRDA now is not anticipated to increase traffic. Jira is federated so you can have two instances that share tickets back and forth. Doug notes that tracking the questions going on in the community is helpful. He offers to share some of the statistics of their effort. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will contact Doug to obtain the statistics.
 +
**Ken notes a tracking system is important for the help desk. If Jira is a developers' tool similar to what GForge can do, asks Woody, do we want to take on managing and supporting another tool?
 +
**Lorraine notes that tooling strategy is not being considered in such decisions as to use desk.com (e.g. Education portal). These strategic decisions are not being reviewed operationally. This needs to be evaluated critically during the pilot.  Need to understand what features that we need that GForge does not have, continues Woody. As pilots are executed they need to be evaluated in terms of the new business architecture and the tooling strategy. ACTION ITEM: Ken will talk to Dave (HQ) to see how we steer this tool selection.
 +
**Development of process to span the organization needs a recommendation for technical (gforge or DSTU comments) as well as procedural (who has final approval or vetting an answer that represents the organization). 
 +
**Andy cautions that tool selection before all the business functions are known. One consideration on a business function may be seamless integration with a key business partner such as the ONC. Lorraine suggests that for questions meeting certain criteria, it should be voted on by the committee. Giorgio notes that we may need to wait for HQ to inform us of the result of the pilot; Calvin feels it must be more collaborative. His interest is in defining a uniform process for how the help desk questions get forwarded to the work groups. The relationship between the help desk and the work groups is of concern not necessarily which tool the contractor recommends be used, notes Jean. Andy brings the cause and effect around to relate how the bandwidth of HQ development was spent on integrating the education portal contributing to unavailability to work on the DSTU comments expansion.
 +
**Ken asks for a leader of a Help Desk task force to evaluate the process, including cochairs of the affected WGs, HQ etc. John Roberts volunteers, and Calvin, Jean, and Andy agree to be on the task force. Dave Hamill should be invited. Immunization is John, SDWG is Calvin, V2.x O&O and FHIR needs representation - ACTION ITEM: Ken will solicit volunteers on Monday night at the cochairs dinner/meeting.
 +
**Doug asks that the task force to also consider organizations external to HL7 as well. Affiliates or other SDOs (e.g. NCPDP SCRIPT) also might have referral questions to consider including in the process. Process for help desk to WGs, WG answers back to Help Desk, and bidirectional exchange externally must be considered.
 +
*Strategic Initiatives review and [[Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard]] metrics discussion. Dashboard change was on harmonization participation moved from red to yellow. Wait until March to work on changes to the dashboard once ballot comments from strategic initiatives are evaluated and new chair is named. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will add to first agenda in March 3.
 +
**Comment on FHIR inclusion was supposed to be included in the ballot by Austin
 +
*TSC Review and Planning
 +
**TRAC
 +
**New WGH "WGM" metric - room requests by deadline, WGM minutes by deadline, and agendas by deadline. ES will announce Monday night that they're looking for beta test participants on the new WGM room scheduling app. Should we wait to roll the metric out until the project is rolled out - for after the May WGM to schedule rooms for the Sep WGM. JohnR asks where the requirements gathered are kept. You can find them in the ES meeting minutes and sign up for the ES focus group listserv.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Recessed 3:02 PM
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Q4===
 +
 
 +
Re-convened 3:17 PM - defer PLA to Weds Q3, SAIF AP in process of closing down (see Wednesday Q4 to see if we will continue to require SAIF language in WGH, BAM review tomorrow night, US Realm Task Force addressed earlier
 +
*TRAC
 +
**Tripod metric already discussed - when do we want to roll them out? WGM room scheduling should roll out with the new ES program. Freida notes the cochairs handbook also prescribes a draft agenda be created at the WGM for the next WGM. The other two parts of the metric are for posting agendas and changing the minutes metric to WGM minutes posting not including conference calls. Calvin agrees on the WGM minutes metric. The agenda metric is intended for just a draft WG agenda, to convey to participants the days and times the WG meets if not the specific agenda topics, which can be further developed as the WGM nears. Calvin suggests that the PIC DMP etc and GOM should be made consistent. John R also points out it is part of the DMP that meeting minutes be posted within two weeks.
 +
**Pat moves and Calvin seconds the change of the minutes metric to WGM meeting minutes within two weeks and synchronize the GOM and DMP references. Unanimously approved. ACTION ITEM: Ken will announce on Monday night at the cochairs meeting.
 +
**TRAC to recommend updated "Ballot timeline" metric
 +
**Ballot quality assessment
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7730/11307/%54%53%43%5f%57%47%48%5f%67%6f%76%65%72%6e%61%6e%63%65%5f%6d%61%6e%61%67%65%6d%65%6e%74%5f%68%65%61%6c%74%68%5f%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%2e%70%64%66 Governance and Management Group Health]
 +
***Metric on having projects should not be measured. Cosponsorship of projects is what we're using instead of steering division oversight. SSD SD needs DMP, SWOT, and post-WGM survey.
 +
**TSC [http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/tsc/projects.cfm Project Review]
 +
***Next Milestone updates
 +
****PLA next milestone date 2014May (916)
 +
****BAM next milestone (917) 2014May, end date 2015Jan
 +
****TSC Governance PGM (890) 2014May
 +
****Strategic initiatives dashboard - (799) - close this and consider a new project when new SI are published.
 +
*****JohnQ reports on discussing the tooling budget - priorities are FHIR and CIMI. John asked Lloyd for most effective application of FHIR to MU IGs and discussed with Doug and has received positive feedback. CIMI reference would be work for clinical data modeling. CIMI history with Fresh Look Task Force reviewed by Woody and the Task Force relationship with FHIR. Detailed clinical model "instances" are of interest to ONC but that does not represent what CIMI is doing. They are looking at query transport mechanisms using FHIR.
 +
****SAIF Pilot will be closed with shutdown see Weds Q4 (764)
 +
****SAIF IG (763)
 +
****SAIF Architecture program (751)
 +
****Calvin asks about closing projects with outstanding business need - Pat asks what becomes of SAIF in the organization? Woody adds that we need a foundation in an architecture but we are clearly not drinking our own kool-aid in this organization at this time. We need to re-think how we engage it. SAIF artifact definition project has also gone nowhere, and those who could do it are engaged in other projects (i.e. FHIR). Need a balance between the role of SAIF framework and the capacity of the organization to incorporate the changes. Ken's concern is there is no bandwidth to continue but Austin offered to continue through the closure and documentation of current state so that we would have the data when we want to start up again. JohnQ notes that most of those that started with SAIF are no longer sponsored to work with HL7 any longer. Austin's retraction of support is indicative of the non-availability of volunteer time to work on it. Calvin notes he doesn't object to collecting data on closure of the project but we still need to define an HL7 architecture and how consistency will be managed. Ken agrees that we need to tackle the critical issue of product line/product family first and can address with smaller projects more reasonable for success. Woody notes that V3 was originally intended to help cross-platform consistency. SAIF defines the sets of concepts that may be used for defining what makes an HL7 specification. Even without an artifact definition for datatypes, the use of datatypes and a data model, etc was referenced in evaluating the CDS projects last year. Pat suggests we review the collective data that is gathered by the closure process and identify step by little step what to do with it.
 +
****Giorgio notes about the knowledge gathering process and application of the knowledge. Calvin notes it can be used in the conceptualization of the products. 
 +
***Three year planning projects:
 +
****[http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=1035 PI#1035] Develop Process to Manage and Coordinate US Realm Based projects; postpone until we have new leader of US Realm Task Force.
 +
****[http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=1889 PI#889] FHIR Program
 +
****[http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=631 PI#631] Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
 +
*UDI Task Force - Paul has not sent out the document yet.
 +
*Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=313 Open Issues List]
 +
**Andy and Woody will develop CMET balloting process documentation for endorsement and review for endorsement on the Monday cochairs agenda
 +
***Woody shows a slide show with a draft solution which he will also review Monday night. See TSC-report-Beeler.PPT
 +
**Andy, with Freida, Ken McCaslin, and John Roberts will work on IG definition and conformance and inviting Rob Snelick; they will meet Wednesday afternoon cookie break
 +
**Calvin and Lorraine, aided by Jean will work on DAM desirable consistency value proposition, and conformance definition. No update is available
 +
**OOC ballot schedule as approved by the TSC fouls up the signup for the May ballot due to tooling issue on the ballot desktop as maintained by Don, originally authored by Mike Craig. There are only approximately 8 days for ballot signup. Jean would like to review policies on OOC ballots to define requirements for the tooling. What do we need to change in the rules to avoid this problem again. Calvin notes we now live in a time with much pressure to turn things around on cycles that don't conform to our WGM schedules. JohnQ notes we had the capability to run an ISO ballot out of sync with the regular HL7 ballots, or could review the possibility of running a separate server instance.
 +
***ACTION ITEM: Karen will check with Don and let the TSC know Sunday night. OOC ballots also lead to developer burnout, multiple voting deadlines etc. Andy notes that the organization needs to be able to respond to the pressure from the ONC. Need policies and set criteria to be able to respond to those pressures.
 +
*Architecture and Tooling (John Quinn) - see above
 +
 
 +
Karen reviews the two truths one lie results
 +
 
 +
*Tony had the most creative lie
 +
*Andy guessed the most lies correctly with 8.
 +
 
  
−
#Discussion
+
Adjourned 4:51 PM
−
#Adjourned hh:mm am/pm (timezone).
 
−
-->
 
  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
Line 158: Line 303:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
−
* .
+
* request review at the March 17 telecon on issues they discover with the Conformance Testing.
 +
* Lynn will contact Doug to obtain the statistics on ONC's help desk
 +
*Ken will talk to Dave (HQ) to see how we steer this tool selection for the help desk
 +
*Ken will solicit volunteers on Monday night at the cochairs dinner/meeting for the Help Desk task force
 +
*Lynn will add to first agenda in March 3 for updated [[Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard]] metrics discussion.
 +
*Ken will announce the change to the WGM minutes metric on Monday night at the cochairs meeting.
 +
* Karen will check with Don and let the TSC know Sunday night on OOC ballots
 +
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
−
*.
+
*Review projects > 5 years old needing to update their PSS - see [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/2788/11144/%50%72%6f%6a%65%63%74%52%65%70%6f%72%74%5f%32%30%31%33%31%30%31%30%64%2e%78%6c%73 last status update]
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 19:10, 10 February 2014

TSC Saturday meeting for 2014Jan WGM

Guests are asked to make alternate arrangements for the noon meal, or respect the opportunity for TSC members to dine first as the food provided is for elected TSC members and invited guests noted on the agenda


back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Rio Grande West

Date: 2014-01-18
Time: 9am-5 pm
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ArB Vice Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
Q3 Doug Fridsma BOD member
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Tony Julian HL7 ArB Chair
regrets Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
regrets Austin Kreisler TSC Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSC Chair
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
regrets Q1,2 Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Karen Van Hentenryck HL7 HQ Associate Director
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1 and Q2 - Team Exercise

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Result of e-vote:
  5. Team Exercise - Karen Van




Q3 - Governance: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  • TSC task force on Help Desk and Conformance testing
  • Strategic Initiatives review and Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard metrics discussion
  • TSC Review and Planning
  • ArB BAM-lite progress and BAM task force
  • Product Line Architecture program
  • FGB/FMG updates
  • TRAC
  • US Realm Task Force
  • UDI Task Force
  • SAIF Architecture Program


Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

  • Review Open Issues List
    • Andy and Woody will develop CMET balloting process documentation for endorsement and review for endorsement on the Monday cochairs agenda
    • Andy, with Freida, Ken McCaslin, and John Roberts will work on IG definition and conformance and inviting Rob Snelick;
    • Calvin and Lorraine, aided by Jean will work on DAM desirable consistency value proposition, and conformance definition.
  • Review projects > 5 years old needing to update their PSS - see last status update
  • Architecture and Tooling (John Quinn)
  • Tooling

Sunday

  1. HL7 Terminology Authority (Heather Grain) [15 mins]
  2. ArB
    • BAM-lite
  3. FGB
    • Leadership
    • Next steps

Wednesday lunch

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      (September) Review TSC SWOT

Supporting Documents

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Team Exercise - Karen Van

2014JanTeamBuilding Life Boat PPT

    • Three behaviors learned from the exercise to help TSC resolve challenges identified
      • Provide logic from reasoning behind asserting one's position
      • Ensure everyone is heard and respect different linguistic and mental processing rates
      • Reassuring when working on Task Forces in different subgroups when our results were so similar;
      • willing to compromise when prevailing wisdom is not in your own favor

Q2

What is working and should not change

  • e-Votes (favored by: Giorgio)
  • WGH and PBS Metrics (favored by: Ken, Freida, Calvin)
  • Splitting governance, management and methodology
    • Lorraine notes that while it's not working right yet the thought process is helpful
    • Woody notes the segregation of distinction with management and governance but not enough players to split them in every circumstance
  • Staff support (favored by: Ken, John R, John Q)
  • Saturday TSC WGMs (favored by: Melva)
  • Weekly conference calls (favored by: Pat)
  • Flexibility to allow WG to collaborate in their way
    • Giorgio notes the boundary how governance over WGs and independence of WGs is subject to change
  • Project approval (favored by: John R, John Q)
  • FMG - Jean disagrees
  • Balloting and publication (favored by: John R, John Q, Tony but challenged by FHIR)


Top choices:

  • Staff support
  • Saturday TSC WGMs
  • PBS Metrics
  • WGH Metrics

Project approval, FMG had 0 votes.

What should we be working on?

  • Well established set of procedures for establishment of new product family (Short-Term)
    • Establishing gatekeeping mechanism - what are the criteria for "a good fit" for an HL7 specification (Short)
    • John Q describes differences between historical process and today's effect of the lack of technical involvement on the Board.
    • Jean notes we must define the role of the TSC in conjunction with the development of governance among many groups. John Q notes the pressure of the market is the impetus for the change. Board as arbiter of power, has been entry point for these external specs and has executed tactical decisions instead of delegating to the TSC. John Q notes Halamka and Humphrey's statements on FHIR are walking papers.
    • Focus on value for our customers (Short and Long-Term)
    • Processes for project approval (Woody asks if the US Realm Task force is solving the problem for now?) (Short and Long)
    • Concept consistency between product lines using SAIF principles (Long)
    • Understanding and operationalizing definitions of product line and product family (Short)
  • CMETs (Short)
  • Expanding volunteer base (technical experts) (Long)
  • FHIR (Short)
  • Support of John Q and Ken as they represent TSC on the Board (Pat and Austin). Pat notes the speed of communication coordination needs to improve. (Long)
  • Better coordination between TSC and the Board (Long)
  • Clearly defining and then educating those that would bring specifications to HL7 on project / product processes (Short)
  • Define optimal organization structure (TSC/SD, TC and SIGs) (Long)
  • Consider the international perspective
    • Jean recounts CAN affiliate experience taking a long time and significantly changed the specifications that they brought to HL7, compared to these US projects that come in nearly unchanged.
    • Giorgio suggests we find a mechanism to bring affiliate group activity into the WG at HL7 International with more recognition of HL7 Affiliate contributions and their needs.
  • Joint Board/TSC meetings (Long)
    • Freida suggests a joint session with the BOD and TSC to discuss strategic and tactical level differentiation. (Long)
  • Figure out US Realm space (Woody) for guidance to WGs. (Short)
    • Jean notes the % of non-US attendees from CAN is decreasing. The US Realm involvement is turning off international participation.
    • John R notes a group from CDC brought some projects through PHER and then disappeared.
  • Rules around bringing work into HL7 (Short)
  • Other SDOs (Pat notes WEDI and X12 had similar problems with UDI) having same issues, so sort out opportunities to adapt to changes and requests of the marketplace. (Long)


Ken describes his vision:

  • collaborative - expect him to ask how others think something should be handled, try to ensure all voices are heard
  • not chairing the US Realm Task Force - needs to be handed off. He doesn't think the TSC should own that.
  • He will delegate items and just expect that you will bring a recommendation back, but not necessarily attend the meetings. Pat describes the impact it would have on TRAC as an example.
  • exercises will guide everyone's understanding on what the TSC goals will be
  • Top down vs bottom up? Need to be both, agile in responsiveness to the community, confidence in decision criteria whether saying yes or no to community and stakeholder demands.
  • Expanding volunteer base is a critical problem


Adjourned 12:35 PM

Q3

Re Convened at 1:34 PM

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  • TSC task force on Help Desk and Conformance testing - Austin had been concerned that some WGs were overburdened with the support tasks they would be assigned. Would there eventually be a WGH metric on their ability to handle Help Desk requests, etc? Responsibilities and expertise of contractor for the Help Desk function discussed.
    • Tier 1 support by contractor is only a short finite period of time. The contractor is there to develop the questions and first answers. They are not contracted to remain first line of support once their prescribed content is developed.
    • Help Desk with judgments and best practices going back to the domain committees is one issue but the conformance testing it's a different effort.
    • Melva notes she and Jean and Joginder are working on the conformance testing developing artifacts for the pilot. At this time they're not sure what it means to the WG going forward but they are working on Immunization so they're working with PHER for now.
    • Ken asks Jean, Melva and John Q to report back on issues they discover with the Conformance Testing. Lessons learned and next steps on Conformance testing are part of the contract - ACTION ITEM: request review at the March 17 telecon.
    • Help Desk contract bid closes Monday so we can't make decisions yet on help desk. Adding FHIR and other product lines into the Help Desk app may change how the questions are referred. Pat recounts what they do at another SDO. Melva describes how CHI's Standards desk operates and indicates that technical interpretations go to their listservs. JohnR notes they get questions from the listservs and the contact information from presentations. This would be another source of such questions. Ken notes that corrections on some answered questions on the listserv also works well.
    • Lorraine asks about timeliness and volume. Calvin notes the volume has not been an issue. The process they follow is causing unease as some implementers are using individual cochairs as touchpoints representing the whole committee. They are reviewing DSTU comments more carefully now, as a committee as well. Calvin suggests it might follow such a process. Categorization and process for review of change requests in V2 cited as an example.
    • Project request to build feedback pages like DSTU comments for informative and normative has not received priority due to lack of bandwidth. So the listserv is currently the only tool. Lorraine notes that Lloyd is not confident the DSTU comments page will not meet their needs to track and resolve issues the DSTU. Calvin notes that the DSTU comments page got some enhancements that made it much more useful. Lorraine asks where to find what the enhancements were?
    • Melva suggests that this process determination needs to be part of the help desk contractor deliverables. Lorraine notes that the way the work for the Help Desk contracts are being chunked out may not provide an easy way to include such recommendations in the contract deliverables.
    • Doug Fridsma joins and describes their efforts in Jira by Atlassian and Confluence which is related to reporting issues in the manner of software bugs. They get 50 to 60 per week and 90% are level-1 responses to where they can find xyz in the specification. When they get questions they cannot answer on the technical end they forward them to SDWG. Launching QRDA now is not anticipated to increase traffic. Jira is federated so you can have two instances that share tickets back and forth. Doug notes that tracking the questions going on in the community is helpful. He offers to share some of the statistics of their effort. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will contact Doug to obtain the statistics.
    • Ken notes a tracking system is important for the help desk. If Jira is a developers' tool similar to what GForge can do, asks Woody, do we want to take on managing and supporting another tool?
    • Lorraine notes that tooling strategy is not being considered in such decisions as to use desk.com (e.g. Education portal). These strategic decisions are not being reviewed operationally. This needs to be evaluated critically during the pilot. Need to understand what features that we need that GForge does not have, continues Woody. As pilots are executed they need to be evaluated in terms of the new business architecture and the tooling strategy. ACTION ITEM: Ken will talk to Dave (HQ) to see how we steer this tool selection.
    • Development of process to span the organization needs a recommendation for technical (gforge or DSTU comments) as well as procedural (who has final approval or vetting an answer that represents the organization).
    • Andy cautions that tool selection before all the business functions are known. One consideration on a business function may be seamless integration with a key business partner such as the ONC. Lorraine suggests that for questions meeting certain criteria, it should be voted on by the committee. Giorgio notes that we may need to wait for HQ to inform us of the result of the pilot; Calvin feels it must be more collaborative. His interest is in defining a uniform process for how the help desk questions get forwarded to the work groups. The relationship between the help desk and the work groups is of concern not necessarily which tool the contractor recommends be used, notes Jean. Andy brings the cause and effect around to relate how the bandwidth of HQ development was spent on integrating the education portal contributing to unavailability to work on the DSTU comments expansion.
    • Ken asks for a leader of a Help Desk task force to evaluate the process, including cochairs of the affected WGs, HQ etc. John Roberts volunteers, and Calvin, Jean, and Andy agree to be on the task force. Dave Hamill should be invited. Immunization is John, SDWG is Calvin, V2.x O&O and FHIR needs representation - ACTION ITEM: Ken will solicit volunteers on Monday night at the cochairs dinner/meeting.
    • Doug asks that the task force to also consider organizations external to HL7 as well. Affiliates or other SDOs (e.g. NCPDP SCRIPT) also might have referral questions to consider including in the process. Process for help desk to WGs, WG answers back to Help Desk, and bidirectional exchange externally must be considered.
  • Strategic Initiatives review and Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard metrics discussion. Dashboard change was on harmonization participation moved from red to yellow. Wait until March to work on changes to the dashboard once ballot comments from strategic initiatives are evaluated and new chair is named. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will add to first agenda in March 3.
    • Comment on FHIR inclusion was supposed to be included in the ballot by Austin
  • TSC Review and Planning
    • TRAC
    • New WGH "WGM" metric - room requests by deadline, WGM minutes by deadline, and agendas by deadline. ES will announce Monday night that they're looking for beta test participants on the new WGM room scheduling app. Should we wait to roll the metric out until the project is rolled out - for after the May WGM to schedule rooms for the Sep WGM. JohnR asks where the requirements gathered are kept. You can find them in the ES meeting minutes and sign up for the ES focus group listserv.


Recessed 3:02 PM


Q4

Re-convened 3:17 PM - defer PLA to Weds Q3, SAIF AP in process of closing down (see Wednesday Q4 to see if we will continue to require SAIF language in WGH, BAM review tomorrow night, US Realm Task Force addressed earlier

  • TRAC
    • Tripod metric already discussed - when do we want to roll them out? WGM room scheduling should roll out with the new ES program. Freida notes the cochairs handbook also prescribes a draft agenda be created at the WGM for the next WGM. The other two parts of the metric are for posting agendas and changing the minutes metric to WGM minutes posting not including conference calls. Calvin agrees on the WGM minutes metric. The agenda metric is intended for just a draft WG agenda, to convey to participants the days and times the WG meets if not the specific agenda topics, which can be further developed as the WGM nears. Calvin suggests that the PIC DMP etc and GOM should be made consistent. John R also points out it is part of the DMP that meeting minutes be posted within two weeks.
    • Pat moves and Calvin seconds the change of the minutes metric to WGM meeting minutes within two weeks and synchronize the GOM and DMP references. Unanimously approved. ACTION ITEM: Ken will announce on Monday night at the cochairs meeting.
    • TRAC to recommend updated "Ballot timeline" metric
    • Ballot quality assessment
    • Governance and Management Group Health
      • Metric on having projects should not be measured. Cosponsorship of projects is what we're using instead of steering division oversight. SSD SD needs DMP, SWOT, and post-WGM survey.
    • TSC Project Review
      • Next Milestone updates
        • PLA next milestone date 2014May (916)
        • BAM next milestone (917) 2014May, end date 2015Jan
        • TSC Governance PGM (890) 2014May
        • Strategic initiatives dashboard - (799) - close this and consider a new project when new SI are published.
          • JohnQ reports on discussing the tooling budget - priorities are FHIR and CIMI. John asked Lloyd for most effective application of FHIR to MU IGs and discussed with Doug and has received positive feedback. CIMI reference would be work for clinical data modeling. CIMI history with Fresh Look Task Force reviewed by Woody and the Task Force relationship with FHIR. Detailed clinical model "instances" are of interest to ONC but that does not represent what CIMI is doing. They are looking at query transport mechanisms using FHIR.
        • SAIF Pilot will be closed with shutdown see Weds Q4 (764)
        • SAIF IG (763)
        • SAIF Architecture program (751)
        • Calvin asks about closing projects with outstanding business need - Pat asks what becomes of SAIF in the organization? Woody adds that we need a foundation in an architecture but we are clearly not drinking our own kool-aid in this organization at this time. We need to re-think how we engage it. SAIF artifact definition project has also gone nowhere, and those who could do it are engaged in other projects (i.e. FHIR). Need a balance between the role of SAIF framework and the capacity of the organization to incorporate the changes. Ken's concern is there is no bandwidth to continue but Austin offered to continue through the closure and documentation of current state so that we would have the data when we want to start up again. JohnQ notes that most of those that started with SAIF are no longer sponsored to work with HL7 any longer. Austin's retraction of support is indicative of the non-availability of volunteer time to work on it. Calvin notes he doesn't object to collecting data on closure of the project but we still need to define an HL7 architecture and how consistency will be managed. Ken agrees that we need to tackle the critical issue of product line/product family first and can address with smaller projects more reasonable for success. Woody notes that V3 was originally intended to help cross-platform consistency. SAIF defines the sets of concepts that may be used for defining what makes an HL7 specification. Even without an artifact definition for datatypes, the use of datatypes and a data model, etc was referenced in evaluating the CDS projects last year. Pat suggests we review the collective data that is gathered by the closure process and identify step by little step what to do with it.
        • Giorgio notes about the knowledge gathering process and application of the knowledge. Calvin notes it can be used in the conceptualization of the products.
      • Three year planning projects:
        • PI#1035 Develop Process to Manage and Coordinate US Realm Based projects; postpone until we have new leader of US Realm Task Force.
        • PI#889 FHIR Program
        • PI#631 Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  • UDI Task Force - Paul has not sent out the document yet.
  • Review Open Issues List
    • Andy and Woody will develop CMET balloting process documentation for endorsement and review for endorsement on the Monday cochairs agenda
      • Woody shows a slide show with a draft solution which he will also review Monday night. See TSC-report-Beeler.PPT
    • Andy, with Freida, Ken McCaslin, and John Roberts will work on IG definition and conformance and inviting Rob Snelick; they will meet Wednesday afternoon cookie break
    • Calvin and Lorraine, aided by Jean will work on DAM desirable consistency value proposition, and conformance definition. No update is available
    • OOC ballot schedule as approved by the TSC fouls up the signup for the May ballot due to tooling issue on the ballot desktop as maintained by Don, originally authored by Mike Craig. There are only approximately 8 days for ballot signup. Jean would like to review policies on OOC ballots to define requirements for the tooling. What do we need to change in the rules to avoid this problem again. Calvin notes we now live in a time with much pressure to turn things around on cycles that don't conform to our WGM schedules. JohnQ notes we had the capability to run an ISO ballot out of sync with the regular HL7 ballots, or could review the possibility of running a separate server instance.
      • ACTION ITEM: Karen will check with Don and let the TSC know Sunday night. OOC ballots also lead to developer burnout, multiple voting deadlines etc. Andy notes that the organization needs to be able to respond to the pressure from the ONC. Need policies and set criteria to be able to respond to those pressures.
  • Architecture and Tooling (John Quinn) - see above

Karen reviews the two truths one lie results

  • Tony had the most creative lie
  • Andy guessed the most lies correctly with 8.


Adjourned 4:51 PM

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • request review at the March 17 telecon on issues they discover with the Conformance Testing.
  • Lynn will contact Doug to obtain the statistics on ONC's help desk
  • Ken will talk to Dave (HQ) to see how we steer this tool selection for the help desk
  • Ken will solicit volunteers on Monday night at the cochairs dinner/meeting for the Help Desk task force
  • Lynn will add to first agenda in March 3 for updated Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard metrics discussion.
  • Ken will announce the change to the WGM minutes metric on Monday night at the cochairs meeting.
  • Karen will check with Don and let the TSC know Sunday night on OOC ballots
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2014-01-18_TSC_WGM_Minutes&oldid=12912"