2015-11-09 TSC Call Agenda

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP

For those without access to microphone/speakers:

US: +1 (224)501-3318

Canada: +1 (647)497-9379

Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80

Access Code: 426-505-829

GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829		Date: 2015-11-09 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer

Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented				yes/no
Chair/CTO		ArB		International Affiliate Rep		Ad-Hoc
x	Ken McCaslin	x	Tony Julian	.	Jean Duteau	Regrets	Austin Kreisler
x	John Quinn	.	Lorraine Constable	x	Giorgio Cangioli	.
Domain Experts		Foundation and Technology		Structure and Semantic Design		Technical and Support Services
x	Melva Peters	x	Woody Beeler	x	Calvin Beebe	x	Freida Hall
x	John Roberts	x	Paul Knapp	.	Pat van Dyke	x	Andy Stechishin
.			Russ Hamm	.		.	Sandra Stuart (co-chair elect)
ex officio		Invited Guests		Observers		HL7 Staff
.	Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote	.		x	Lynn Laakso	x	Anne Wizauer
.	Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote	.	.	.	obs2	.
.		.		.	.	.

Agenda

Housekeeping

1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Agenda review and approval -
3. Approve Minutes of 2015-11-02 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

1. Approval items:
   • 2016Jan Ballot Approval
2. Discussion topics:
   • Standards Maturity Clarification - Ken (15 minutes)
     • Related open motion from Atlanta meeting: MOTION by Paul to modify guidance on DSTU naming to allow for a major release number, a minor release number, and revision number (major.minor.revision). Revisions are set by instance of publication and don’t change the lifecycle of the specification. We should amend our guidance to align with that. Second by Lorraine. Discussion over how this relates to normative standards and also errata publications. Will run this by FGB/FMG for comment before voting on it. Paul will work on some examples for review.
   • White Paper Publishing Process
     • PIC representatives here to discuss peer review process and need for project scope statement
   • Multi-Year Planning: Rollout with proposed WGs (see project approval request in approval items below)

Management

1. Review action items –
2. Approval items:
   • Project Approval Request for Work Group Multi-Year Planning at TSC Tracker 8938
   • Recirculation Ballot Request by the RCRIM WG of the DESD for HL7 V3 Standard: Structured Product Labeling, Release 7 at Project Insight 1147.
3. Approval Items from last week's e-vote approved 5/0/0 with DESD, SSD-SD, ArB, T3SD, and Giorgio voting:
   • Recirculation Request by the O&O WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Common Product Model (CPM) CMETs, Release 3 at Project Insight 1002 Project Insight 1147 and TSC Tracker 8954
   • DSTU Extension Request for ''HL7 Version 3 Domain Analysis Model: Diet and Nutrition Orders, Release 2 at Project Insight 974 and TSC Tracker 8955
   • Normative Publication Request by the PA WG of the SSD-SD of Patient Encounter Messaging at Project Insight 1029 and TSC Tracker 8957
4. Discussion topics:
5. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
6. Open Issues List

Minutes

• Meeting minutes accepted via general consent
• Standards Maturity Clarification
  • Ken: Discussion at AMIA meeting revealing confusion around standards and standards terminology - specifically with DSTUs. C-suite people don't understand difference between a standard and a draft; they understand the word draft to mean that it's not a standard. All of our standards as they're in flux are still a standard. We need a way to talk about our standards without differentiating.
  • Ken displays examples including FHIR, Arden, RIM, CCOW, V2, V3, LRI IG, and CDA. Discussion over the disparate ways we name these and how to move forward. Woody asserts implementation guides can't drive standard naming. Woody: the only thing that is ANSI approved is a normative standard and those are the only things we can claim are standards. Ken: if that's so, then how do you get people in the c-suite to agree to participate on a draft? Woody: the federal government is perfectly happy to do so. Ken: Chuck is experiencing push back; people are trying to differentiate what we mean. Paul: with draft, there is no assurance that it won't change. That's what concerns people. Version numbers shouldn't be used as indicators of maturity. Ken: Then how do we do a better job managing this, and how do we get people engaged who are not dealing with HL7 and help them quickly come to an understanding of where we are? We need ways of identifying paths for our standards; some people who are not very technical would consider an IG a standard, and that's part of the confusion. Woody: we need to remove the implication that IGs are standards. Paul: anything that is regulated or required by somebody feels like a standard, even if it isn't one. Freida: we need to consider what we've got in the pipeline based on our recently approved naming convention. Ken: We need to figure out how make this work in the marketplace; draft implies it's not a standard. Paul: we could use any other word than draft but it doesn't change what stage it's at. Woody states that you can't use draft in isolation to describe it - you have to use draft standard for trial use. Ken will ask Chuck to join us next Monday for his feedback. Freida: one thing that is happening is there was a mindset of vendors that they're not implementing anything until it's normative so that they don't have to make changes. Paul: I'm guessing that people are balking because DSTU or draft connotes that it hasn't stopped changing, so they want to wait. Renaming may not change that behavior.
• January Ballot e-vote: Anne sent out e-vote; Ken describes process. All to review and submit vote to Anne for compiling and discussion on next week's call.
• White Paper Publishing Process: no representatives present
• Multi-Year Planning:
  • What is the best way to roll out to the WGs? Melva: Rick thought things were on hold as there was a question on what we're rolling out. Review of the PSS revealed that groups may use their current process, the spreadsheet tool, or the gForge template created by Tony. Melva states we should find WGs to pilot each of the tools but questions letting them continue on using what they've used in the past. Ken agrees that they shouldn't use what they've used in the past; group agrees. Should we give them the option between spreadsheet and gForge? Ken states we should suspend using 3 year plan as a WGH indicator until we get this new process running. Rick: between now and May WGM would be the pilot. Question over whether that is enough time. Ken: so we'll make May a touchpoint to decide if we're going to continue to pilot or roll it out. Discussion over how to handle 4/5 year planning items.
  • MOTION by Melva to approve PSS with recommended changes (on timing and allowable tools); Paul seconds.
  • VOTE: all in favor

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2015-11-16 TSC Call Agenda.

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.