Concall-20071203

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, December 3rd, 2007 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 702-894-2444 and enter pass code 1244667#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

• Chair: Charlie McCay
• 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, Charlie McCay
• ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
• HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck

invited

• Charles Jaffe (CE); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Chair); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair Elect)

Apologies

Ken McCaslin

Agenda

1. (10 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - John Quinn (chairing), Woody Beeler, Calvin Beebe, Ioana Singureanu, Karen Van Hentenryck, Gregg Seppala, Austin Kreisler, Charlie Mead, Charlie McCay (joined late)
   2. Accept Agenda - The agenda was accepted as printed.
   3. Approve Minutes Concall-20071126 - – MOTION by Beeler, seconded by Kreisler, to accept the minutes as printed. The motion passed unanimously.
2. (10 min) Standing Committee Reports
   1. CEO Report - No report was given.
   2. CTO Report - Quinn reported that he has a couple of tooling calls this week, one with Bob Dolin (templates tooling requirements)and another with Jane Curry (HL7's representative to the OHT). There was some TSC discussion around the requirements,where they can be found, etc. Beeler noted that the technical specification piece of requirements is well detailed in the MIF, albeit at higher level of detail than most specifications should be. The user requirements have yet to be documented. Beeler noted that the current capabilities need to be documented so we know what needs to be sustained as we move forward. Jane Curry is directly involved in the OHT and can better answer the tooling questions. Dolin's proposal was distributed to the Board list and will be vetted with the Board first and then brought back to the steering division. The requirements needs to be written to enable someone to develop the tools.
   3. ARB report - C. Mead understands that we have agreement on the general structure on the ARB. He would like the Steering Divisions to propose candidates from their group to serve on the ARB. Next week, he hopes to bring forward a slate for ratification, and will, in the interim, contact the proposed individuals to ensure that they want to serve and understand the commitments and responsibilites. Quinn agrees this is a good approach. We need to coordinate the transition with the current ARB. Some of the current ARB members are likely to be asked to serve on the newly formed ARB and this will help with the issues of transition and continuity. C. Mead feels that the commitment will be a one hour meeting/week, 3-4 hours of work/week, and a .5 day meeting at each Working Group Meeting.
   4. Affiliates Report -No report was provided.
   5. Domain Experts - Kreisler reported their steering division met Friday. They had quorum early on the call but not late on the call when decisions were to be made. This will be an ongoing issue with the steering division given its size and quorum requirements. The steering division discussed and have identified a candidate from their group to serve on the ARB but need to confirm that this individual is willing to serve. There was discussion on their call as to what types of projects should be brought forward to the TSC for approval. The steering division has a wide range of projects that range from proposal for ISO/CEN work to proposals for creating DAMs.
   6. Foundation & Technology - Singureanu reported that their steering division did no meet last week, although work on several issues progressed. They worked on the HDF issue captured in the tSC issue tracking system and RBAC ballot (this issue was resolved and closed). Singureanu reported that the matter of HDF will need to be deferred. She proposed that responsibility for maintaining HDF will reside, for the time being, with multiple committees rather than just with the project service committee as was proposed in their draft mission/charter. ACTION ITEM: Singureanu will contact the Project Services group to secure their approval on this proposal.
   7. Structure & Semanic Design - Beebe forwarded two project proposals to the TSC list for discussion on today's call. While attempting to display the proposals, there was a brief discusion around issue There is a glossary and it is owned by publishing. Is this appropriate and should it have editorial control over things from individual domains. The current process calls for the project proposals to be approved within the SD and then they would be sent to the co-chairs and given x number of days to respond to them. Beebe will post these so that others can review them (work with Van Hentenryck to get these online)
      1. project scope statements for approval [1]
   8. Technical & Support Services
3. (20 min) ARB -- update on progress
4. (10 mins) ISO/CEN/HL7
   1. generic process definition
   2. ICSR and pharmacy projects
5. (5 min) Project Management - next steps?
6. (10 min) issue review and processing
   1. to close
      1. McCay: Develop critera for defining Infrastructure projects [2]
   2. for TSC review / action
      1. McCaslin: Need to assign ownership of HL7 glossary and define good practices [3]
   3. Status of gForge Implementation -
   4. tsc issue review process