2017-01-18 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Saturday meeting for San Antonio WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Regency East #1		Date:2017-01-18 Time: 12:30 PM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
?	Woody Beeler	TSC Member Emeritus
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets	Freida Hall	Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x	Russ Hamm	HL7 FTSD Co-chair
?	Stan Huff	HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
?	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	SSD-SD Co-Chair
x	Wayne Kubick	HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
Regrets	Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x	Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
x	Melva Peters	HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x	John Roberts	HL7 DESD Co-chair
Regrets	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
Regrets	Sandra Stuart	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
?	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Wednesday lunch

1. TSC call on Monday?
   • Call cancelled on Monday
2. Issues from the week
   • Consolidated CDA volume 3
   • Raised by Melva:
     • What does it mean to have a formal relationship? Are their obligations re: joint meetings, joint material, etc
       • From Mission and Charter Guidelines document:
         • Formal Relationships with Other HL7 Groups: This section specifies the relationships the WG has established with other HL7 groups, usually in the form of a listing of project collaborators on an HL7 Project Scope Statement. As formal collaborations change over time, these should be noted in the annual review of the WG M&C statement.
         • Formal Relationships with Groups Outside of HL7: This section specifies the formal relationships the work currently has in place. For the purpose of this document a formal relationship includes contractual agreements, Memoranda Of Understanding and cooperative agreements. Mutual interest in a proposed topic or participation in WG activities by members of outside organizations does not qualify as a formal relationship.
     • What is the process for a WG name change?
       • From the GOM:09.02.02 Changing a Work Group Name or Mission/Charter:
         • Given approval under the Work Group’s documented decision making practices, the co-chairs shall present a request to change the name of the Work Group or revise its mission and charter. The request shall be presented to the parent Steering Division of the Work Group as a draft Work Group charter citing the proposed name and including any proposed revisions. Upon approval by the parent Steering Division, using its documented decision making practices, the revised Work Group charter shall be distributed to the co-chairs of all Work Groups and the Affiliate chairs. Further, the HL7 staff representative shall notify Headquarters to initiate all necessary changes to the infrastructure to reflect the Work Group’s new name, mission, and charter.
         • An SD decision to deny or approve the proposal may be appealed to the TSC within thirty days of the SD decision. The TSC shall set a date to resolve the appeal and notify the appellant. Should the appellant be a member of the TSC, they shall recuse themselves from resolution of the appeal. The decision of the TSC shall be final. Should the approval of the Work Group’s new name, mission or charter be overturned on appeal, the HL7 staff representative shall notify Headquarters to initiate all necessary changes to the infrastructure to reinstate the Work Group’s previous name, mission and charter.
3. Review TSC Mission and Charter
4. Review TSC Decision Making Practices

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• TSC call on Monday?
• Issues from the week
  • Russ states there is a case where different three letter bindings are being used in different standards. He will investigate further.
  • Consolidated CDA volume 3
    • Austin states that last year, TSC agreed to approach to create CCDA V3 that could be published and managed independently. Two project were going forward simultaneously for volume 3. Both thought they would be ready to ballot last cycle, but one of them now feels they were rushed. Their project was picked as the one that was associated with the ballot; however, it wasn’t ready. The other content had been through a previous comment ballot and will be ready to publish with minor tweaks. However, we can’t let the other material go forward. Issue is the project that can’t go forward was chosen for the NIB. The ballot announcement did include both. For publication purposes, they’d like to pull out the bad content and publish the material that is ready. Post-ballot they’ll dispose a number of content by stating the content will be pulled from the scope and will be re-balloted after being reformatted. Lesson is that it should have been conducted as two ballots.
      • Group agrees that this is allowable to go forward as stated. Discussion over how to avoid in the future, perhaps with the CDAMG. Need better quality gateway to getting material into the ballot. Also should have a set of qualifications for being a certified CCDA templater. Content going to V3 has to use a tool.
  • V3 meeting
    • Jean reports that the future of V3 meeting was held on Monday Q2, hosted by ARB. Two tracks arose: One is to look at the existing products we have to inventory them and identify those that are truly V3 and alert WGs that they need to reach out to stakeholders to determine the status. Another is to analyze the tooling and what should happen. Could push it to the producer of the content. Jean will be sending out a document for review and an invite for further participation in the analysis/planning. Austin asks if a V3 product family is warranted. Also will work to frame the communication. Austin is concerned about the binding syntax changes coming out of the vocab WG and the effect on V3. Would require a change to the tooling stack. Wayne notes that when you do the messaging, we need to help people understand what is actually part of V3.
  • Raised by Melva:
    • What does it mean to have a formal relationship? Are their obligations re: joint meetings, joint material, etc
      • This came up because a group requested CQI to have a formal relationship, and they weren’t sure what it meant since they didn’t have any joint meetings or work products. Common interest was the purpose the group stated. Must be mutual agreement.
        • Melva will take back the advice that it should be based upon a joint work effort.
    • What is the process for a WG name change?
      • Issue arose from CBCC. Mission and Charter should be changed and sent to SD for approval. Cochairs, affiliate chairs, and staff must be notified. Staff updates website.
      • Melva notes that Anesthesia will continue for the time being.
      • Discussion over Child Health. People believe it should be disbanded but when it was attempted, it was stopped.
  • Paul: Open Source Tooling group met last night. Discussion over whether or not they will be a WG. Wayne states they will likely be a COI.
  • Paul asks how the meeting went in terms of CDA on Monday. Austin reports there was good feedback on roles that should be considered. Structured Documents needs to determine what it will look like/what its focus will be. Needs to understand what will be owned.
• Review TSC Mission and Charter
  • ACTION: Add to upcoming call
• Review TSC Decision Making Practices
  • ACTION: Add to upcoming call
• Adjourned at 1:40 pm Central
• ACTION: Anne to send out links to DMP and M&C for next call
• ACTION: Jean to present work on SD structure on next call

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

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .