Difference between revisions of "2014-04-09 TRAC"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
|colspan="2"|Chair/CTO ||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Members  
 
|colspan="2"|Chair/CTO ||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Members  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Pat Van Dyke|| ||Rick Haddorff|| ||Melva Peters
+
|x ||Pat Van Dyke|| x||Rick Haddorff||x ||Melva Peters
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||John Quinn || ||Austin Kreisler|| ||  
+
|x ||John Quinn || regrets||Austin Kreisler|| x || Dave Hamill
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
−
*Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke (Dave copied forward last week's agenda because he wasn't sure if all the items were addressed enough to have them removed)
+
*Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke  
−
*Review minutes of [[2014-04-09 TRAC]]  
+
*Review minutes of [[2014-04-02 TRAC]]  
 
*Action Items:
 
*Action Items:
−
**Generic WGM Checklist Calendar
+
**Generic WGM Checklist Calendar - Rick
−
**List of late submitted projects
+
**List of late submitted projects - Dave
 
**Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.  
 
**Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.  
 
**Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call.  
 
**Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call.  
Line 51: Line 51:
  
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>  
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>  
−
Convened  
+
Convened 10:03 AM
−
 
+
*Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
−
 
+
*Review minutes of [[2014-04-02 TRAC]]
 +
*Action Items:
 +
**Generic WGM Checklist Calendar - Rick was able to work on this a little bit, working to obtain a template for the publishing calendar. He has some more work to do before reviewing with TRAC. In review with Project Services there was concern over having another document to maintain. Lynn has a template in Excel she can share.
 +
**Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example. No update
 +
**Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call. She is not ready yet.
 +
**Get history of infractions on PSS and NIB deadlines for last two years and make a copy of the PSS guidance for the NIB deadline. Bring it back to TSC for an opinion on whether they want a metric on projects coming in late as there is a steady stream of them Averaging 3+ PSS coming in late each cycle. NIB reports from Don Lloyd will be very time consuming and he was not able to commit time.
 +
***Find out what the 7+ day late PSS were to see what type of exceptions they represent - Dave hopes to have something for next week on a third pass through the data
 +
<!--*Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7824/11436/%43%6f%6e%73%6f%6c%69%64%61%74%65%64%52%69%73%6b%41%73%73%65%73%73%6d%65%6e%74%2e%78%6c%73%78 20140212 risk spreadsheet]
 +
**precepts for the IP protection issues and address the related risks.
 +
*TSC referred action:
 +
**WG Balloting metric: bundling together other PBS metrics measures including balloting in previous cycles, submitting PSS on time and NIBs on time, etc
 +
***[http://lists.hl7.org/read/attachment/244475/2/BallotRecMiningForQuality.zip Ballot quality assessment] consideration as a governance point/work group health metric/strategic initiatives dashboard metric. Larger sample size, Other measures the TRAC might assess are % of negatives less than 20, or ballots not returned versus negative balloters.
 +
***Discuss outreach to ballot evaluators on what additional ballot quality measures should be performed.-->
 +
*New risks:
 +
**CDA issues that have surfaced.
 +
***John suggested that someone needs to take Keith Boone's email and break it down into discrete components. Essentially an implementer can embed code in a transform to execute in a browser.
 +
***This has already been addressed at the Board but it should be at the TSC level, and John feels that is the appropriate group to review. There is also a risk in FHIR but at a lesser level as the CDA standard and tools have been out there for a great deal of time. FHIR has more current press and growing interest in the user community to create awareness of the exposure.
 +
***Pat asks what HL7's role is in security. John notes that he's not a security administrator nor does much coding any longer but it's good practice to avoid creating such back doors. Is it an HL7 problem or just a problem in general asks Pat? Software practices with multiple user acceptance of downloading executables and running the executable files are already available. HL7 needs to include such measures and the Tooling WG might be able to assist with regard to such measures, as Ken asked Andy to address on Monday's TSC meeting. XSLT style sheets are widely used in industry, e.g. reference lab results presented to physicians.  Otherwise you might send structured data and a PDF.
 +
***John suggests we obtain from Karen (as scribe from the Board) Keith's statements from the Board meeting for the component measures recommended for direct response. Lynn will take this action.
 +
**Unauthorized DSTU update for FHIR
 +
***TSC passed a motion to require FMG to roll back the DSTU update and follow the process. This was discussed in FGB yesterday and the impacts to the implementers would be deemed significant. They passed a motion to request further conversation and appeal. The time delay to continue development in FHIR would be two months and a very long time for developers. QA processes for checks and balances come into question.
 +
**IP policies regarding areas of FHIR are more muddy than other member benefits. ONC has a number of questions and needs for access. S&I Framework wants access to IP. Individuals formerly part of Organizational membership cannot share the IP within their organization.
  
  
Line 62: Line 83:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
−
 
+
*Lynn will obtain from Karen (as scribe from the Board) Keith's statements from the Board meeting for the component measures recommended for direct response
 +
*Pat will review balloting QA results for discussion next week
  
 
|-  
 
|-  
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
*[[2014-04-16 TRAC]]   
 
*[[2014-04-16 TRAC]]   
−
 
+
*Melva offers regrets
  
 
|}
 
|}
 
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved
 
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved

Latest revision as of 14:53, 9 April 2014

TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes

back to TRAC page

Meeting Info/Attendees

TRAC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#

Date: Wednesday, 2014-04-09
Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum n/a
Chair/CTO Members Members
x Pat Van Dyke x Rick Haddorff x Melva Peters
x John Quinn regrets Austin Kreisler x Dave Hamill

Agenda

  • Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
  • Review minutes of 2014-04-02 TRAC
  • Action Items:
    • Generic WGM Checklist Calendar - Rick
    • List of late submitted projects - Dave
    • Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.
    • Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call.
    • Get history of infractions on PSS and NIB deadlines for last two years and make a copy of the PSS guidance for the NIB deadline. Bring it back to TSC for an opinion on whether they want a metric on projects coming in late as there is a steady stream of them Averaging 3+ PSS coming in late each cycle.
      • Find out what the 7+ day late PSS were to see what type of exceptions they represent.
  • Review 20140212 risk spreadsheet
    • precepts for the IP protection issues and address the related risks.
  • TSC referred action:
    • WG Balloting metric: bundling together other PBS metrics measures including balloting in previous cycles, submitting PSS on time and NIBs on time, etc
      • Ballot quality assessment consideration as a governance point/work group health metric/strategic initiatives dashboard metric. Larger sample size, Other measures the TRAC might assess are % of negatives less than 20, or ballots not returned versus negative balloters.
      • Discuss outreach to ballot evaluators on what additional ballot quality measures should be performed.

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Convened 10:03 AM

  • Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
  • Review minutes of 2014-04-02 TRAC
  • Action Items:
    • Generic WGM Checklist Calendar - Rick was able to work on this a little bit, working to obtain a template for the publishing calendar. He has some more work to do before reviewing with TRAC. In review with Project Services there was concern over having another document to maintain. Lynn has a template in Excel she can share.
    • Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example. No update
    • Melva will re-review the T3F risks and give a first draft on impact and likelihood for review on the next call. She is not ready yet.
    • Get history of infractions on PSS and NIB deadlines for last two years and make a copy of the PSS guidance for the NIB deadline. Bring it back to TSC for an opinion on whether they want a metric on projects coming in late as there is a steady stream of them Averaging 3+ PSS coming in late each cycle. NIB reports from Don Lloyd will be very time consuming and he was not able to commit time.
      • Find out what the 7+ day late PSS were to see what type of exceptions they represent - Dave hopes to have something for next week on a third pass through the data
  • New risks:
    • CDA issues that have surfaced.
      • John suggested that someone needs to take Keith Boone's email and break it down into discrete components. Essentially an implementer can embed code in a transform to execute in a browser.
      • This has already been addressed at the Board but it should be at the TSC level, and John feels that is the appropriate group to review. There is also a risk in FHIR but at a lesser level as the CDA standard and tools have been out there for a great deal of time. FHIR has more current press and growing interest in the user community to create awareness of the exposure.
      • Pat asks what HL7's role is in security. John notes that he's not a security administrator nor does much coding any longer but it's good practice to avoid creating such back doors. Is it an HL7 problem or just a problem in general asks Pat? Software practices with multiple user acceptance of downloading executables and running the executable files are already available. HL7 needs to include such measures and the Tooling WG might be able to assist with regard to such measures, as Ken asked Andy to address on Monday's TSC meeting. XSLT style sheets are widely used in industry, e.g. reference lab results presented to physicians. Otherwise you might send structured data and a PDF.
      • John suggests we obtain from Karen (as scribe from the Board) Keith's statements from the Board meeting for the component measures recommended for direct response. Lynn will take this action.
    • Unauthorized DSTU update for FHIR
      • TSC passed a motion to require FMG to roll back the DSTU update and follow the process. This was discussed in FGB yesterday and the impacts to the implementers would be deemed significant. They passed a motion to request further conversation and appeal. The time delay to continue development in FHIR would be two months and a very long time for developers. QA processes for checks and balances come into question.
    • IP policies regarding areas of FHIR are more muddy than other member benefits. ONC has a number of questions and needs for access. S&I Framework wants access to IP. Individuals formerly part of Organizational membership cannot share the IP within their organization.


Adjourned

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lynn will obtain from Karen (as scribe from the Board) Keith's statements from the Board meeting for the component measures recommended for direct response
  • Pat will review balloting QA results for discussion next week
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2014-04-09_TRAC&oldid=13204"