Difference between revisions of "2013-08-19 TSC Call Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 142: Line 142:
 
#Discussion topics:  
 
#Discussion topics:  
 
#*Co-sponsoring Work Groups' involvement in assertion of ballot content readiness
 
#*Co-sponsoring Work Groups' involvement in assertion of ballot content readiness
−
#**Recent issues around WGs cosponsoring project that feel 'cut out of the loop' on input to content before ballot etc. What mechanisms can make sure that cosponsors are in the loop? One idea is that with a NIB there should be a place for cosponsors' agreement to go to ballot. May impede project progress if cosponsors ignore their responsibility. Calvin asks if all cosponsors want same level of participation or should additional levels be defined? Some WGs indicated as cosponsors may only want to be interested parties, notes Austin. Mead asks for an example: CDA IG for Digital Signatures, where Security WG objected to lack of opportunity to review prior to SDWG advancing to ballot. Jean notes that with nutrition dam and allergies dam the Pharmacy WG insisted on a content review. In the nutrition dam Pharmacy went from interested party to cosponsor based on the way in which the modeling went. Melva notes that primary sponsor WG project team members also need to take responsibility to remember their cosponsors. Austin cautions for those projects where development work occurs outside of HL7 this is particularly problematic.  He adds that there should be governance, management and methodology role definitions with a PSS for cosponsored project. There may be a common responsibility for sponsorship of the project. Lorraine notes a single WG needs to ensure responsibility for the project steps to be done. Ken notes the responsibility should lie with the project facilitator. Austin notes project facilitators may not be aware they've been tagged with the project. Need to align the various roles with hoe they appear on the PSS. '''Action item: '''Freida notes that Rick Haddorff and she on the Project Services group that work with the SAIF AP could bring something on these roles and clarification in the PSS back in two weeks. Austin notes it could wait for Cambridge. Freida notes that Dave is working on the 2014 release of the PSS now, so the timing is appropriate.  
+
#**Recent issues around WGs cosponsoring project that feel 'cut out of the loop' on input to content before ballot etc. What mechanisms can make sure that cosponsors are in the loop? One idea is that with a NIB there should be a place for cosponsors' agreement to go to ballot. May impede project progress if cosponsors ignore their responsibility. Calvin asks if all cosponsors want same level of participation or should additional levels be defined? Some WGs indicated as cosponsors may only want to be interested parties, notes Austin. Mead asks for an example: CDA IG for Digital Signatures, where Security WG objected to lack of opportunity to review prior to SDWG advancing to ballot. Jean notes that with nutrition dam and allergies dam the Pharmacy WG insisted on a content review. In the nutrition dam Pharmacy went from interested party to cosponsor based on the way in which the modeling went. Melva notes that primary sponsor WG project team members also need to take responsibility to remember their cosponsors. Austin cautions for those projects where development work occurs outside of HL7 this is particularly problematic.  He adds that there should be governance, management and methodology role definitions with a PSS for cosponsored project. There may be a common responsibility for sponsorship of the project. Lorraine notes a single WG needs to ensure responsibility for the project steps to be done. Ken notes the responsibility should lie with the project facilitator. Austin notes project facilitators may not be aware they've been tagged with the project. Need to align the various roles with how they appear on the PSS. '''Action item: '''Freida notes that Rick Haddorff and she on the Project Services group that work with the SAIF AP could bring something on these roles and clarification in the PSS back in two weeks. Austin notes it could wait for Cambridge. Freida notes that Dave is working on the 2014 release of the PSS now, so the timing is appropriate.  
 
#*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7467/10802/%47%75%69%64%61%6e%63%65%2d%74%6f%2d%57%6f%72%6b%2d%47%72%6f%75%70%73%2d%6f%6e%2d%44%53%54%55%2d%55%70%64%61%74%65%73%2e%64%6f%63%78 Guidance on DSTU update vs reballot]
 
#*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7467/10802/%47%75%69%64%61%6e%63%65%2d%74%6f%2d%57%6f%72%6b%2d%47%72%6f%75%70%73%2d%6f%6e%2d%44%53%54%55%2d%55%70%64%61%74%65%73%2e%64%6f%63%78 Guidance on DSTU update vs reballot]
 
#**Austin reviews conditions where revised draft standards may be released without recourse to a review ballot. An extremely common practice is to reballot a DSTU based on any changes. Ken clarifies that going back to ballot would be a WG decision. What implementation guidance from the use of the DSTU should be offered when publishing an unballoted DSTU update?  
 
#**Austin reviews conditions where revised draft standards may be released without recourse to a review ballot. An extremely common practice is to reballot a DSTU based on any changes. Ken clarifies that going back to ballot would be a WG decision. What implementation guidance from the use of the DSTU should be offered when publishing an unballoted DSTU update?  
Line 168: Line 168:
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
*[[2013-08-26 TSC Call Agenda]].
 
*[[2013-08-26 TSC Call Agenda]].
−
*Today's revisions to [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7481/10823/%47%75%69%64%61%6e%63%65%2d%74%6f%2d%57%6f%72%6b%2d%47%72%6f%75%70%73%2d%6f%6e%2d%44%53%54%55%2d%55%70%64%61%74%65%73%32%30%31%33%30%38%31%39%2e%64%6f%63%78 Guidance on DSTU update vs reballot]
+
*Today's revisions to [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7482/10824/%47%75%69%64%61%6e%63%65%2d%74%6f%2d%57%6f%72%6b%2d%47%72%6f%75%70%73%2d%6f%6e%2d%44%53%54%55%2d%55%70%64%61%74%65%73%32%30%31%33%30%38%31%39%2e%64%6f%63%78 Guidance on DSTU update vs reballot]
 
|}
 
|}
  
  
 
© 2013 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.
 
© 2013 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.

Latest revision as of 16:06, 26 August 2013

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 273-848-837

Date: 2013-08-19
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Austin Kreisler x Ron Parker x Jean Duteau x Ken McCaslin
. John Quinn x Lorraine Constable .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters x Woody Beeler x Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
x Mead Walker x Tony Julian regrets Pat van Dyke . Andy Stechishin
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote x John Roberts x Brian Pech x Lynn Laakso
. Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote . . x Paul Knapp .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2013-08-12 TSC Call Agenda

Management

  1. Action items:
    • Mead and Jean volunteer to write up response on RPS R2 normative request (from 8/5)
  2. Referred from last week pending content review committee input
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote: approved 7/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, Affiliate, ArB, DESD, FTSD, SSD SD, T3SD voting
  4. Approval items for e-vote this week:
    • Informative Publication Request for HL7 VERSION 2.5.1 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE: HEIGHT AND WEIGHT REPORT, RELEASE 1 – US REALM [HL7 Version 2.5.1: ORU^R01], for PHER WG of DESD cosponsored by OO of SSD SD - See Project Insight ID# 972
  5. Approval if needed - OOC ballot request for CDS ballots deferred from September regular ballot cycle at TSC Tracker # 2707.
  6. Discussion topics:
    • Filling Ravi's remaining unexpired term
  7. Reports:
    • Update from TSC US Realm Task Force
    • Content Review team progress
    • BAM task force
    • TRAC
    • Status of Ballot quality plans from ballot/reconciliation "mining"
  8. WGM Planning - 184 registered, on pace with Baltimore, Cambridge past
    • Invitation of members-elect to TSC meetings
    • Steering Division project reviews (e.g. mitigation of CDS project risks)

Governance

  1. Discussion topics:


Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Austin convenes at 11:02 AM

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) John Roberts, Paul Knapp and Brian Pech observing
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler; no action anticipated on items 2 and 5, though we'll request status review under reports. Approved by general consent
  3. Approve Minutes of 2013-08-12 TSC Call Agenda; Ron abstains, pass 7/0/1

Management

  1. Action items:
    • Mead and Jean volunteer to write up response on RPS R2 normative request (from 8/5); Jean wrote something up and sent it to Mead and Melva. Mead does not recall if it has been sent to RCRIM. Mead will do that this week.
  2. Referred from last week pending content review committee input - no response yet from task force
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote: approved 7/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, Affiliate, ArB, DESD, FTSD, SSD SD, T3SD voting
  4. Approval items for e-vote this week:
    • Informative Publication Request for HL7 VERSION 2.5.1 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE: HEIGHT AND WEIGHT REPORT, RELEASE 1 – US REALM [HL7 Version 2.5.1: ORU^R01], for PHER WG of DESD cosponsored by OO of SSD SD - See Project Insight ID# 972
  5. Approval deferred - OOC ballot request for CDS ballots deferred from September regular ballot cycle at TSC Tracker # 2707.
  6. Ken joins
  7. Discussion topics:
    • Filling Ravi's remaining unexpired term; Austin proposes we extend an invitation to Giorgio to step into the position as an ad-hoc for the remainder of Ravi's term until the end of year. Austin will contact him this week. Motion: Woody moves and Ken seconds appointment of Giorgio as an ad-hoc member until his elected term begins, pending his agreement. Vote: unanimously approved.
  8. Reports:
    • Update from TSC US Realm Task Force
      • The task force focused on moving forward the projects around a US Realm product line. A proposed PSS has been circulated and will be discussed further on Wednesday. Ken and Austin will meet with the Board Treasurer Calvin to develop a draft budget to support it.
    • Content Review team progress
      • The big activity has been in this arena. Lorraine reports that as of Thursday there seemed to be convergence on consensus with datatype questions. Then Friday evening Ken Kawamoto attempted to summarize and found that everyone was not of the same understanding. She recommends content review team meet again today in advance of tomorrow's meeting and timelines are getting short. Will likely be 1 PM today according to Austin's Doodle poll to the core content review team. They will provide a collective report to the rest of the task force for Wednesday.
    • BAM task force
      • Stalled for a while, doing some reviews of the draft org diagram, hoping Ron's return will help move forward.
    • TRAC
      • Pat is not available, but Austin reports they have been dissecting the CDS issue for risks and mitigations. They are also working on summarizing their discussion with the TSC for Cambridge.
    • Status of Ballot quality plans from ballot/reconciliation "mining" - pushed to back burner, Austin still needs to convene.
  9. WGM Planning - 184 registered, on pace with Baltimore, Cambridge past
    • Invitation of members-elect to TSC meetings; Austin has done this. John reports he will join the TSC in Cambridge.
    • Steering Division project reviews (e.g. mitigation of CDS project risks); topic of discussion in Cambridge, more thorough review of existing projects to see where they sit with respect to their scope and planning going forward. Woody notes we need to expose the external schedules that are driving certain projects that are not known outside of the project team. Perhaps a defined calendar as part of PSS. Austin adds the TSC needs to define ways to mitigate these sorts of project risks.

Governance

  1. Discussion topics:
    • Co-sponsoring Work Groups' involvement in assertion of ballot content readiness
      • Recent issues around WGs cosponsoring project that feel 'cut out of the loop' on input to content before ballot etc. What mechanisms can make sure that cosponsors are in the loop? One idea is that with a NIB there should be a place for cosponsors' agreement to go to ballot. May impede project progress if cosponsors ignore their responsibility. Calvin asks if all cosponsors want same level of participation or should additional levels be defined? Some WGs indicated as cosponsors may only want to be interested parties, notes Austin. Mead asks for an example: CDA IG for Digital Signatures, where Security WG objected to lack of opportunity to review prior to SDWG advancing to ballot. Jean notes that with nutrition dam and allergies dam the Pharmacy WG insisted on a content review. In the nutrition dam Pharmacy went from interested party to cosponsor based on the way in which the modeling went. Melva notes that primary sponsor WG project team members also need to take responsibility to remember their cosponsors. Austin cautions for those projects where development work occurs outside of HL7 this is particularly problematic. He adds that there should be governance, management and methodology role definitions with a PSS for cosponsored project. There may be a common responsibility for sponsorship of the project. Lorraine notes a single WG needs to ensure responsibility for the project steps to be done. Ken notes the responsibility should lie with the project facilitator. Austin notes project facilitators may not be aware they've been tagged with the project. Need to align the various roles with how they appear on the PSS. Action item: Freida notes that Rick Haddorff and she on the Project Services group that work with the SAIF AP could bring something on these roles and clarification in the PSS back in two weeks. Austin notes it could wait for Cambridge. Freida notes that Dave is working on the 2014 release of the PSS now, so the timing is appropriate.
    • Guidance on DSTU update vs reballot
      • Austin reviews conditions where revised draft standards may be released without recourse to a review ballot. An extremely common practice is to reballot a DSTU based on any changes. Ken clarifies that going back to ballot would be a WG decision. What implementation guidance from the use of the DSTU should be offered when publishing an unballoted DSTU update?
      • Unballoted DSTU updates should be a "dot" release as in 1.b. Balloted releases would be numbered revisions as described in 2.b.
      • Jean notes that before going to normative, the unballoted revisions should be required to go to ballot.
      • Scope change should require an update to the project scope with its associated project scope review, as a DSTU update must be associated with an approved HL7 project. Calvin notes that a scope change may update the project statement but the GOM doesn't require a DSTU additional ballot. Freida notes that these rules in the GOM for DSTU didn't have the opportunity to consider ONC adoption of DSTU in regulation.
      • US Realm considerations discussed with risk of change in adoption of DSTU.
      • Between minor and major scope changes is the gray area requiring judgment on "large changes". Even this guidance is not sufficient enough to require a course of action. What action should the TSC require? Freida asks what is difference between larger changes and major scope changes. Large changes are significant changes within the scope of the original project.
      • Does the guidance table, based on scope of change vs level of uptake, the right dimensions to use?
      • Difference between another DSTU ballot versus draft for comment discussed.
      • Co-sponsor opportunities to weigh in should be considered.
      • Freida would like to provide some footnotes for reference. Review again next week to finalize.

Adjourned at 12:00 PM


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Freida notes that Rick Haddorff and she on the Project Services group that work with the SAIF AP could bring something on these roles and clarification in the PSS back
  • Austin to convene group to review Ballot quality plans from ballot/reconciliation "mining"
  • Core content review team meeting today to provide a collective report to the rest of the task force for Wednesday
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2013-08-19_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=12093"