2009-03-16 TSC Call Minutes

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, March 13, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Daylight Time, GMT -4)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

• Chair: Charlie McCay
• CTO: John Quinn
• Domain Experts: Austin Kreisler (primary), Ed Tripp (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: Ravi Natarajan
• ARB: Charlie Mead (primary), John Koisch (alternate)
• HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck, Lynn Laakso

Invited

• Charles Jaffe (CEO)
• Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Bob Dolin (HL7 Vice Chair)
• Marc Koehn (EA IP)
• Frieda Hall

Apologies

• John Quinn
• Ravi Natarajan

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call: Calvin Beebe, Woody Beeler, Freida Hall, Marc Koehn, John Koisch (briefly), Austin Kreisler, Lynn Laakso, Ken McCaslin, Charlie McCay, Charlie Mead, Chuck Meyer, Gregg Seppala, Mark Shafarman, Ioana Singureanu, Helen Stevens Love, and Ed Tripp
   2. Accept Agenda – bring forward voting items for DESD, FTSD, SSD SD then National Initiative then EA. Agenda approved.
2. Voting/ Priority Agenda items
   1. Domain Experts Project Approval: Imaging Integration COCT_RM830120UV05 Project Scope Statement [1] TSC Tracker # 985– unanimously approved
   2. FTSD Project Approval: Templates Registry Business Requirements Analysis [2] TSC Tracker # 977 - question on listserv on multiple registry projects.
      • Discussion on Templates Registry – this will be approved by peer review. In comparison to the registry for implementation guides, this is to establish metadata requirements and use cases. Distinguish from specification registry per Greg. Unanimously approved. Mark S left the call at this point.
   3. SSD SD Project Approval: Clinical Genomics - Project Proposal (attachment) on Genetic Testing Reports (tabled from 2009-03-02) [3] TSC Tracker # 917Patient Care WG not comfortable yet. Table a little longer? PC thinks SNOMED should be allowed for family history and Genomics does not agree. Do we give them time or reject the project. Process Issue - how are issues escalated, that is what this process is at the TSC. Invite them to submit to the TSC for next week a statement of issues. And we may refer to Terminfo or ArB...
   4. EA IP Update - Marc Koehn
      • EA IP meeting last week: received feedback on how to kickstart our work. Marc had reported to join ArB for half-day in OOC meeting in Vegas. Before that we’ll work on alpha project considerations document further, invite ArB to comment; come up with something together. Gathering process materials and getting guidance from Ken and Nancy for a process review document determine what the outputs need to be based on the inventory we gather for as-is world and determine what artifacts are needed from what we gather. Architectureally what do we document how do we document it well, example of the discussion on the genomics project. Looking for predictability of how issues are dealt with and resolved… Marc drops off call at this point.
   5. Actionable National Initiative Plan: proposed as TSC project.
      • Since last summer HL7 has been looking into providing a better service to PEOs through national initiatives, U.S. in particular but also UK, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, etc. Looking for how large-scale national initiative projects can engage with HL7 more effectively. Need to establish for this effort how the TSC works, how the ArB works, and how the development projects can happen alongside the other work happening in HL7. The HL7 organization budget is expected to be funded by that activity, and value we deliver will be based on working with national-scale programs without tripping up the other stuff we’re doing.
      • Ioana asks will this look into a U.S. affiliate? Note that the interested parties have not yet agreed to participate, they are suggested. Charlie has not discussed with Dennis Giokas yet.
      • Genesis of the work is Charlie’s concern to link U.S. national initiative and Helsignor Collaborative. Need to describe what would happen in HL7 to deliver value to each of those initiatives. How to deliver a set of requirements in a fixed time frame? Ioana suggestes it would contain U.S. Affiliate, harmonization requirements etc. Not a decision making project but put together a suite of proposals for the effort. Helen reports that Dennis G. has asked her to action a plan tied to Helsignor Collaborative meeting. May need to make that explicit in PSS. Helen must drop off.
      • Freida needs to talk to Linda to ensure she can take on facilitator role. Document is still really being drafted, not ready for TSC approval. Freida could discuss with Linda what the scope of this activity needs to be.
      • Woody suggests re-evaluating use of word of “enforcer”, as it is not a friendly word. Freida comments that U.S. realm using it from Gartner analysis.
      • Charlie reiterates we need to be clear what the outputs of the project should be for materials available to decision-making bodies. Who would make the changes if org changes are recommended. Lynn will carry on working on it over next week or so, get it to point where we can approve as TSC project in next couple of weeks.
      • Ioana would like to see resolution of other outstanding items in this project. U.S. affiliate question may be a related activities; task force on affiliate in limbo. Michael Van Campen leading discussion on OneMemberOneVote. Can we use this to close the loop?
      • Woody reminds that discussion of the US affiliate can subsume any other work and care must be taken. How do we provide value to the organizations, and how do we present that to these organizations. Need to address whether it is in scope or a related issue within this document. Freida left the call at this point.
3. Remaining meeting admin items
   1. Approve Minutes from 2009-03-09 TSC Call Minutes –
      • Discussion on Previous minutes by Chuck Meyer. CTO involvement in resolving ballot pool issues. Chuck requested input on his modification of the resolution for peer review comment and wanted to get feedback on email sent last Monday regarding WI0901003. Ioana and Woody both assented. No other comments; minutes approved unanimously.
   2. Review action items – none needing review today.
4. Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
   1. CEO Report - none
   2. CTO Report – Expects to send a report later today
   3. ArB Report - Charlie Mead – all four decks done. Behavioral deck in final edit, time to start writing the four documents to go with them. C/C and Governance left to do. They wish to have all the documents done and get comments by Vegas. Last week OHT met three days f2f and formally adopted the ECCF for framework to use to assert compliance and deal with how to specify core components of tooling based architecture. Jane Curry and John Quinn presented on tools. ECCF does not specify artifacts but development of framework for the development of the artifacts. OHT looking at how to use that to build tools. NCI adopting ECCF with its own set of artifacts. Australia, MITA and Canada Infoway also looking to adopt ECCF. We gained the traction we’d hoped for, from ECCF.
   4. Affiliates Report - no report
   5. Domain Experts -
      • Backup plan for Kyoto DESD no cochairs – WG can elect a temporary cochair for the Kyoto meeting of the SD but not necessary for the TSC meeting if we will reach quorum.
      • Ed can’t go, Austin can’t. Slight chance it may change in next few weeks for Austin. Ed suggests Jim Case as cochair emeritus. Charlie suggests still valuable to have someone from DESD there at TSC meeting for input. Would they have voice or vote? DMPs prohibit proxy, but we can change our DMPs though. Just don’t want to break governance rules; still valuable to have their say even without a vote. Need to know if they’ll have someone there, first.
   6. Foundation & Technology - PSS approved. No other business.
   7. Structure & Semantic Design - Couple project proposals coming up next week. Question on paperwork for other interested parties. Was asking if could be cleaned up to say other interested parties of the project.
   8. Technical & Support Services - next meeting Thursday, nothing to report at this time.
5. Discussion topics
   • TSC internal projects – See draft TSC Three-Year-Plan.
     • Would like to get them approved, identify the resourcing issues. Encouraging strategic members, active members, to engage in them. TSC members if they have time, or get funding from Board… Need feedback, if there’s no point doing that.
     • TSC Technology Plan 2009: change to compare new and old product lists. Reasonable summary of objectives. No issues with this document. Put a motion for next week to approve the documents
     • TSC Roadmap Alignment[4] and Roadmap Projects reviewed roadmap tasks; first task has a draft.
       • Roadmap Task: Criteria for prioritizing new projects draft
     • TSC_Visibility_2009, at TSC Tracker # 883
       • Looked briefly at CTO, TSC Chair, TSC PM comparison of roles.

Adjourn 12:00 pm Post-script: Chuck Meyer changes to request for publication put on agenda for next week.

• agenda items not addressed:

1. Approval of TSC internal projects – See draft TSC Three-Year-Plan.
   • TSC Technology Plan 2009
   • Project Approvals: TSC Internal projects have not been formally approved by the TSC -
     1. TSC Roadmap Alignment[5] and Roadmap Projects
        • Roadmap Task: Criteria for prioritizing new projects draft
     2. TSC_Visibility_2009, at TSC Tracker # 883
     3. Product Visibility [6]
     4. Project Visibility [7]
     5. Work Group Visibility [8]
2. TSC Forms for "Request to Publish" - updates identified TSC Tracker # 986
   • Per Chuck Meyer's email on the listserv, form changes for compliance with the GOM
   • Originals for DSTU Request for Publication and Informative Document Request for Publication
   • Draft changes for DSTU Request for Publication, and Informative Document Request for Publication
3. Open Issues List