Difference between revisions of "2011-01-10 TSC WGM Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 123: Line 123:
 
<!-- *****  Delete instructions  and change quorum requirements ON NEXT LINE *****-->
 
<!-- *****  Delete instructions  and change quorum requirements ON NEXT LINE *****-->
 
|colspan="4" |'''Quorum Requirements Met: '''n/a  
 
|colspan="4" |'''Quorum Requirements Met: '''n/a  
 +
|-
 +
|colspan="4" | Attendee list: see http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6091/7950/20110110Attendees_cochairdinnerWGM.pdf<br/> or http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6120/7992/2011WGM_TSC_Cochairs_attendance_scan.pdf
 
|}
 
|}
 
<!---=======================================================
 
<!---=======================================================
Line 156: Line 158:
  
 
'''Supporting Documents'''<br/>
 
'''Supporting Documents'''<br/>
−
<!-- ***** Delete instructions and add document names/links ON NEXT LINES *****-->
+
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6120/7992/2011WGM_TSC_Cochairs_attendance_scan.pdf
−
#
+
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6091/7950/20110110Attendees_cochairdinnerWGM.pdf
 +
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6096/7955/2011Jan_TSC_ChairReport-2.pdf
 +
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6092/7951/20110110_2011Jan_ES_PSC.pdf
 +
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6094/7953/20110110_CTO_Report_to_Steering_Division_Co-Chairs.pdf
 +
*http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6093/7952/20110110_ORC_report_to_TSC_2011_Jan.pdf
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
Line 172: Line 178:
  
  
−
'''Open Mic discussion:'''<br/>
+
Austin called the meeting to order at 5:37 PM
 +
# Welcome and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6096/7955/2011Jan_TSC_ChairReport-2.pdf TSC Chair Report] - Austin Kreisler, TSC Chair
 +
#*Austin described the TSC transition, activities since Cambridge (2010Oct meeting). Plans for revitalization of SAIF rollout were described. Jean-Henri Duteau asked how soon the SAIF book would be balloted – it should be fairly soon.  The HL7 SAIF IG will follow later.
 +
#Update from HQ - Karen Van Hentenryck, Lillian Bigham
 +
#* Reminders:
 +
#*:press release forms
 +
#*:meeting minutes to http://www.hl7.org/permalink/?UploadMinutes
 +
#*:Updates to Facilitator List
 +
#*:Rooming needs next WGM
 +
#*:Draft agendas for next WGM
 +
#*:New co-chair training – Th 7am – Room 8.03
 +
#Karen reports the ANSI audit is coming this August, make sure your balloting documentation is accurate.
 +
#*The list of standards that will be carefully reviewed will be announced before the audit and Karen will be seeking any missing information by contacting the co-chairs. Helen asks how far back they go to review a WG minutes – Karen reports it’s five years. ANSI is very thorough and even found an instance where substantive change was made without reballot, so you must be careful. They are being more careful in checking.
 +
#*When a standard reaches its 5 year ANSI anniversary of its approval it must either be withdrawn or reaffirmed for another five years. Those renewals should be taken care of before the August ANSI audit. 
 +
#*The post-WGM survey is now available and will remain open until the end of the month.
 +
# Ballot Report - Karen Van Hentenryck repoerts that Don reported there were 15 ballots , 7 normative, all achieved quorum and 11 passed.
 +
# [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6092/7951/20110110_2011Jan_ES_PSC.pdf Project Services and Electronic Services - Online Presence Project update] - Ken McCaslin
 +
#*Ken described the status of the 2011 Project Scope Statement. It will probably be the first item of the next TSC meeting (conference call) to be approved.
 +
#*”Additional Resources” use recommendations were described. Send links to the webmaster@hl7.org.
 +
# Methodology and Harmonization Report - Woody Beeler, MnM 
 +
#*RIM R3 normative in September and starting in R4. Harmonization meeting scheduled in March so get changes in before that.
 +
#*Ballot process changed through Cambridge and into January, with an all MIF-based process and Datatypes R2-based with certain specific exemptions. Ballot schedule will be sent out for the upcoming cycle. NIBs due end of February and opens 40 days before the May meeting, closing 10 days before the May meeting. Woody will send out the 2011 balloting calendar. Canadian colleagues asked if we could close the winter ballot before Christmas – timelines would be even tighter to get the January ballot ready. They would consider opening it earlier if the opportunity is available. Jean Duteau asked if the ballot cycle is required to be tied to the WGM – Woody responds that usually WG will do reconciliation at the WGM so yes that is the case.  AMS commented that Don Lloyd did a fantastic job with this compressed cycle, which was met with a round of applause. Jean seconds that we would be lost without him. Charlie Mead asked what would be the difference between to be DT R2 or ISO 21090. It’s in the ITS – which are bound to DT R2.
 +
#Mark interjects an announcement of thanks to Sparx systems, for sponsoring the dinner and the tote bags and providing their software.
 +
# [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6094/7953/20110110_CTO_Report_to_Steering_Division_Co-Chairs.pdf CTO Report] - John Quinn, HL7 CTO 
 +
#*John discussed the state of the tooling plan. Tooling took a hit on the budget.
 +
#**Galen comments that MDHT no longer requires you have your own copy of Rational on your machine.
 +
#*John continues with the Product Visibility project status.
 +
#**John will review them and then send them to the responsible work groups for closer scrutiny. Galen asks if there will be a deadline for the response back. Arden and CCOW are the first that will go out.
 +
#**AMS asks what makes a product. Sort of if we ballot it, it’s a product.  AMS asks if e-Learning would be a product. That may be part of the next set of discussions once the balloted standards have been reviewed. AMS also comments that 43 is a large number and will need to be categorized.  John notes the obvious categorization is V2 or V3, etc. but multiple categorizations will be needed providing different views of the product list. Hugh Glover asks if the planning includes discussion with some potential naïve users to see if it makes sense to them. He reminds we already know this stuff so who will check to see if the users can understand. John states that Martopia (the market communications firm) is his litmus test to see if they can understand it well enough to construct the product briefs themselves.  We should still find some naïve users to throw these at, IT people in a hospital and so on, to check for understanding. Helen suggests we ask first-time attendees. Grahame asked about distributing the product briefs to relevant committees – what if there are more than one committee.  Helen asks if CDA is included in V3 and is EHR included with the core?  John feels she should weigh in on the review.
 +
#*John then reviewed what has happened with SAIF.
 +
# ArB Report - Ron Parker and Charlie Mead, ArB Co-Chairs
 +
#*Charlie elaborates on what John and Austin said, regarding governance.  We have a framework now, coming from outside HL7, vetted with the TSC Sunday night, and tested against a set of problems to be solved that was provided by Lloyd. He cites Patrick’s response as finding it easy to understand. Charlie also commented that SAIF as one of the products for product brief still remains to be balloted. Outside of HL7 the SAIF is best advanced with NEHTA, CHI, DOD and NCI, who are all interested in a canonical representation on which their implementation guides can refer.  The ArB is now charged with preparing the SAIF book for informative ballot.  BF is about 70%, ECCF is about 80% compliant with RM-ODP which will be a goal of the balloted SAIF book to be fully compliant or aligned with RM-ODP.
 +
#**AMS says harmonization implies change. Charlie says we’ll use concepts and language from RM-ODP unless we’ve found they don’t have a term, where we’ll then give RM-ODP the feedback to add it.  We will not abandon the OMG levels however.
 +
#[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6093/7952/20110110_ORC_report_to_TSC_2011_Jan.pdf ORC Report] - Scott Robertson
 +
#*He describes the change from Associate Charter and MOU to a Statement of Understanding. The differentiation between official representation and having members from an organization was discussed. Austin points out where there is ambiguity the Work Group’s Mission and Charter needs revision.  Just when there is ‘no formal relationship’ doesn’t preclude the membership arrangement. The grid on the presentation was not definite on whether “No formal relationship” means one is not necessary versus one is necessary but does not yet exist.
 +
# Open Mic
 +
#*John Ritter offers a wrinkle. They would like to have more clinicians participate as co-chairs but they don’t care to handle the administration details in meeting the requirements of good ‘health’.  They need to get a scribe. Mollie Ullman-Cullere asks what purpose they serve on the WG then.  Bob Dolin says we should not distinguish between clinicians and non-clinicians with WG cochair responsibilities. Helen adds that some WG separate among themselves the responsibilities assigned to the co-chairs.
  
−
#
+
Adjourned 6:28 PM.
−
<!--
 
−
#Adjourned hhmm <timezone>
 
−
-->
 
  
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
 
===Meeting Outcomes===

Latest revision as of 19:31, 31 January 2011

back to TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas

Day Date ' Time Icon Event Chair Scribe Room
Monday 10 Jan 2011 AM Q1
Q2
PM Q3
Q4
Q5 Business med.gif TSC Monday Co-Chairs Dinner/Meeting
Austin Kreisler Lynn Laakso TBD
- - - Collect food/drink from buffet in adjacent lounge
17:15 - 17:35 TSC Co-chairs Dinner
17:35 - 17:40 Mark McDougall acknowledgements

Welcome and TSC Chair Report		 Mark McDougall

Austin Kreisler, TSC Chair
17:40 - 17:45 Update from HQ

- Reminders:


New co-chair training – Th 7am – Room 8.03

Karen Van Hentenryck




Lillian Bigham

17:45 - 17:50 Ballot Report Karen Van Hentenryck
17:50 - 18:00 Project Services and Electronic Services - Online Presence Project Update Ken McCaslin
18:00 - 18:10 Methodology and Harmonization Report Woody Beeler, MnM
17:50- 18:10 CTO Report John Quinn, HL7 CTO
18:10 – 18:20 ArB Report Ron Parker and Charlie Mead, ArB Co-Chairs
18:20 – 18:25 ORC Report Scott Robertson, ORC
18:25 - 18:30 Open Mic Lynn Laakso
18:45 - 20:00 Steering Division Meetings


Domain Experts- 5.02
Foundation and Technology - 5.03
Structure and Semantic Design - 5.06
Technical and Support Services - 5.04

DESD 5.02
FTSD - 5.03
SSD SD - 5.06
T3SD - 5.04

Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 Co-chairs dinner/meeting

Location: Charles View Ballroom

Date: 2011-01-10
Time: 17:15-21:15pm EDT
Facilitator Austin Kreisler Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Quorum Requirements Met: n/a
Attendee list: see http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6091/7950/20110110Attendees_cochairdinnerWGM.pdf
or http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6120/7992/2011WGM_TSC_Cochairs_attendance_scan.pdf

Agenda

  1. Dinner
  2. Mark McDougall acknowledgements
  3. Welcome and TSC Chair Report - Austin Kreisler, TSC Chair
  4. Update from HQ - Karen Van Hentenryck, Lillian Bigham
    • Reminders:
      press release forms
      meeting minutes to http://www.hl7.org/permalink/?UploadMinutes
      Updates to Facilitator List
      Rooming needs next WGM
      Draft agendas for next WGM
      New co-chair training – Th 7am – Room 8.03
  5. Ballot Report - Karen Van Hentenryck
  6. Project Services and Electronic Services - Online Presence Project update - Ken McCaslin
  7. Methodology and Harmonization Report - Woody Beeler, MnM
  8. CTO Report - John Quinn, HL7 CTO
  9. ArB Report - Ron Parker and Charlie Mead, ArB Co-Chairs
  10. ORC Report - Scott Robertson
  11. Open Mic


Supporting Documents

Minutes

Austin called the meeting to order at 5:37 PM

  1. Welcome and TSC Chair Report - Austin Kreisler, TSC Chair
    • Austin described the TSC transition, activities since Cambridge (2010Oct meeting). Plans for revitalization of SAIF rollout were described. Jean-Henri Duteau asked how soon the SAIF book would be balloted – it should be fairly soon. The HL7 SAIF IG will follow later.
  2. Update from HQ - Karen Van Hentenryck, Lillian Bigham
    • Reminders:
      press release forms
      meeting minutes to http://www.hl7.org/permalink/?UploadMinutes
      Updates to Facilitator List
      Rooming needs next WGM
      Draft agendas for next WGM
      New co-chair training – Th 7am – Room 8.03
  3. Karen reports the ANSI audit is coming this August, make sure your balloting documentation is accurate.
    • The list of standards that will be carefully reviewed will be announced before the audit and Karen will be seeking any missing information by contacting the co-chairs. Helen asks how far back they go to review a WG minutes – Karen reports it’s five years. ANSI is very thorough and even found an instance where substantive change was made without reballot, so you must be careful. They are being more careful in checking.
    • When a standard reaches its 5 year ANSI anniversary of its approval it must either be withdrawn or reaffirmed for another five years. Those renewals should be taken care of before the August ANSI audit.
    • The post-WGM survey is now available and will remain open until the end of the month.
  4. Ballot Report - Karen Van Hentenryck repoerts that Don reported there were 15 ballots , 7 normative, all achieved quorum and 11 passed.
  5. Project Services and Electronic Services - Online Presence Project update - Ken McCaslin
    • Ken described the status of the 2011 Project Scope Statement. It will probably be the first item of the next TSC meeting (conference call) to be approved.
    • ”Additional Resources” use recommendations were described. Send links to the webmaster@hl7.org.
  6. Methodology and Harmonization Report - Woody Beeler, MnM
    • RIM R3 normative in September and starting in R4. Harmonization meeting scheduled in March so get changes in before that.
    • Ballot process changed through Cambridge and into January, with an all MIF-based process and Datatypes R2-based with certain specific exemptions. Ballot schedule will be sent out for the upcoming cycle. NIBs due end of February and opens 40 days before the May meeting, closing 10 days before the May meeting. Woody will send out the 2011 balloting calendar. Canadian colleagues asked if we could close the winter ballot before Christmas – timelines would be even tighter to get the January ballot ready. They would consider opening it earlier if the opportunity is available. Jean Duteau asked if the ballot cycle is required to be tied to the WGM – Woody responds that usually WG will do reconciliation at the WGM so yes that is the case. AMS commented that Don Lloyd did a fantastic job with this compressed cycle, which was met with a round of applause. Jean seconds that we would be lost without him. Charlie Mead asked what would be the difference between to be DT R2 or ISO 21090. It’s in the ITS – which are bound to DT R2.
  7. Mark interjects an announcement of thanks to Sparx systems, for sponsoring the dinner and the tote bags and providing their software.
  8. CTO Report - John Quinn, HL7 CTO
    • John discussed the state of the tooling plan. Tooling took a hit on the budget.
      • Galen comments that MDHT no longer requires you have your own copy of Rational on your machine.
    • John continues with the Product Visibility project status.
      • John will review them and then send them to the responsible work groups for closer scrutiny. Galen asks if there will be a deadline for the response back. Arden and CCOW are the first that will go out.
      • AMS asks what makes a product. Sort of if we ballot it, it’s a product. AMS asks if e-Learning would be a product. That may be part of the next set of discussions once the balloted standards have been reviewed. AMS also comments that 43 is a large number and will need to be categorized. John notes the obvious categorization is V2 or V3, etc. but multiple categorizations will be needed providing different views of the product list. Hugh Glover asks if the planning includes discussion with some potential naïve users to see if it makes sense to them. He reminds we already know this stuff so who will check to see if the users can understand. John states that Martopia (the market communications firm) is his litmus test to see if they can understand it well enough to construct the product briefs themselves. We should still find some naïve users to throw these at, IT people in a hospital and so on, to check for understanding. Helen suggests we ask first-time attendees. Grahame asked about distributing the product briefs to relevant committees – what if there are more than one committee. Helen asks if CDA is included in V3 and is EHR included with the core? John feels she should weigh in on the review.
    • John then reviewed what has happened with SAIF.
  9. ArB Report - Ron Parker and Charlie Mead, ArB Co-Chairs
    • Charlie elaborates on what John and Austin said, regarding governance. We have a framework now, coming from outside HL7, vetted with the TSC Sunday night, and tested against a set of problems to be solved that was provided by Lloyd. He cites Patrick’s response as finding it easy to understand. Charlie also commented that SAIF as one of the products for product brief still remains to be balloted. Outside of HL7 the SAIF is best advanced with NEHTA, CHI, DOD and NCI, who are all interested in a canonical representation on which their implementation guides can refer. The ArB is now charged with preparing the SAIF book for informative ballot. BF is about 70%, ECCF is about 80% compliant with RM-ODP which will be a goal of the balloted SAIF book to be fully compliant or aligned with RM-ODP.
      • AMS says harmonization implies change. Charlie says we’ll use concepts and language from RM-ODP unless we’ve found they don’t have a term, where we’ll then give RM-ODP the feedback to add it. We will not abandon the OMG levels however.
  10. ORC Report - Scott Robertson
    • He describes the change from Associate Charter and MOU to a Statement of Understanding. The differentiation between official representation and having members from an organization was discussed. Austin points out where there is ambiguity the Work Group’s Mission and Charter needs revision. Just when there is ‘no formal relationship’ doesn’t preclude the membership arrangement. The grid on the presentation was not definite on whether “No formal relationship” means one is not necessary versus one is necessary but does not yet exist.
  11. Open Mic
    • John Ritter offers a wrinkle. They would like to have more clinicians participate as co-chairs but they don’t care to handle the administration details in meeting the requirements of good ‘health’. They need to get a scribe. Mollie Ullman-Cullere asks what purpose they serve on the WG then. Bob Dolin says we should not distinguish between clinicians and non-clinicians with WG cochair responsibilities. Helen adds that some WG separate among themselves the responsibilities assigned to the co-chairs.

Adjourned 6:28 PM.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2011-01-10_TSC_WGM_Minutes&oldid=7545"