Concall-20080804

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, August 4, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

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

invited

• Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair)

Apologies

Austin Kreisler, Woody Beeler

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following individuals were on the call: Charlie McCay, Jim Case, Karen Van Hentenryck, Calvin Beebe, Ken McCaslin, Chuck Meyer, John Koisch, Ioana Singureanu, Frank Oemig, John Quinn, Gregg Seppala
   2. Accept Agenda - McCay suggested that an agenda item be added to discuss priorities for the WGM. With that change, the agenda was accepted.
   3. Approve Minutes from concall-20080721 - Case suggested that we update the minutes from the Domain Experts on the July 21 call to clarify that the requests that are mentioned refer to requests to publish documents as DSTU. With that clarification, the minutes were unanimously approved.
2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
   1. CEO Report -
   2. CTO Report - Quinn distributed his report over the weekend [1]. A Tooling update is included [2].Please contact John directly if you have questions.
   3. ArB Report - Koisch reported that they’ve published their minutes from the last jumpstart meeting to the wiki site
   4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report.
   5. Domain Experts - Case reported that there are a number of mission/charter statements up for approval, inclduing Lab, Imaging Integration and PHER, and he asked if these should be subject to the approval process as projects. Should the missions/charters be distributed to other Steering Divisions? The general consensus was that updates to mission/charter do not need to be reviewed/approved by the TSC. Karen Van will announce these in her Update from the TSC note that goes to the membership and we’ll get those into the Technical newsletter. ACTION ITEM: Meyer will update the GOM policy related to updating work group mission/charters. Case also noted that one of the Clinical Genomics implementation guide going to ballot in the upcoming cycle represents a change to the associated project scope. The issue is whether the document should be going out for ballot without review/approval of the revised project scope statement. Case noted that Kreisler had proposed that OO keep Clinical Genomics from moving forward as the process was not followed. The position of SD chairs is that we have a group that made a substantive change that was not addressed in their project scope statement. Consequently the project has not been reviewed by other me SDs or other groups associated with or affected by the production of the document in question. Are informative documents under the same type of review constrains as normative documents? Does all ballot material submitted for ballots tie back to a project? Van Hentenryck indicated that Don Lloyd had added a field to the NIB form where Work Groups identify the project to which the document is tied. If we allow this document to move forward, it takes away from some of the work the TSC has put in place to ensure that the work is within the scope of the project. This one is clearly not within that scope. Resolution: Structure & Semantic Design Steering Division co-chairs will communcate with the Clinical Genomics Work Group to convey that the TSC will allow this document to go forward for comments only. However, if process is not followed before the next cycle, the document will not be eligible for a Normative or DSTU ballot. Clinical Genomics will be asked to submit a revised project scope statement for approval. If project is not approved with a revised scope, then this ballot is declared null and void.
   6. Foundation & Technology - Nothing to report.
   7. Structure & Semantic Design - Nothing to report.
   8. Technical & Support Services - McCaslin reached out to the list of facilitators at large recommended by Project Services Work Group. He received one response to his outreach. This individual is checking with their management to ensure that they have approval to take on this responsibility. The other issue that came forward from the Technical & Support Services Steering Division is whether the Steering Division co-chairs act as proxy for the Work Group co-chairs in their absence. This suggestion will be problematic in tht Steering Division co-chairs also chair their own Work Groups. RESOLUTION: If a Work Group needs a replacement or stand-in co-chair, they can ask the SD co-chairs, but to formalize it, they should get a vote within their Work Group. McCaslin also noted that the issues of managing Steering Division Facilitators at Large has been raised. This issue will be addressed on the next Project Services call.
3. (30 min) Discussion topics
   1. Proposed standards naming conventions (TSC Issue Tracker Item: 338[3] - Van Hentenryck requested that TSC member review this document and send along suggested edits.
   2. Prioritizing the issues list - McCay noted that we need to prioritize items for the Sept WGM
   3. Roadmap - Karen Van has a couple of edits to make based on feedback from the Board retreat but she will distribute the updated copy within the next few days.

Call adjourned at 11:57 am ET