2016-01-09 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Saturday meeting for Orlando WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Winter Park 50		Date: 2016-01-09 Time: 9:00 AM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x	Woody Beeler	TSC Member Emeritus
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets	Freida Hall	Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
?	Russ Hamm	HL7 FTSD Co-chair
?	Stan Huff	HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
?	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	Adhoc Member
x	Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x	Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
Regrets	Melva Peters	HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x	John Quinn	HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x	John Roberts	HL7 DESD Co-chair
x	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Sandra Stuart	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
3. TSC Team Building Activity?
4. Strategic Initiatives discussion

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

TSC Review and Planning

1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
2. Next WGM Planning
3. Reappointment of expiring FMG members (Buitendijk, Knapp, Mandel, Hay, Mckenzie) and FGB members (Hay, McKenzie, Beeler) for new terms starting in January (Quinn)
4. Continued discussion regarding endorsement of other SDO's standards following GOC review of ballot type

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

TSC Project Review

1. Strategic Initiative Review
2. SGB report: Update on current status, including review of FGB document regarding the review and approval process for product family-related projects
3. Planning for meeting on Sunday Q3 regarding future of FHIR publishing process

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Architecture and Tooling:

1. Tooling
2. Updates to WG Health Metrics (if needed)

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• Q1
• Meeting called to order at 9:00 a.m.
• Karen Van Hentenryck here to do TSC team building activities.
• Ken welcomes Sandy Stuart to the TSC
• Ken announces that John Quinn will be retiring from HL7. Board has appointed him as CTO emeritus. Ken extends warm thanks from himself and the TSC.
• Karen opens the team building activities. Karen challenges the TSC to make some New Year’s resolutions and asks each TSC member to write some resolutions on the provided index card and return to her. Next individuals answered a series of targeted questions to reveal personality traits. Following were activities in which the TSC worked together to build a variety of structures.
• Q2
• Reappointment of FMG/FGB members. Woody states that he wants to continue on FGB but perhaps not as co-chair, which is a separate issue. FGB will be electing one of their members as an additional co-chair internally.
  • MOTION by John Quinn to reappoint the listed FMG/FGB members. Second by Andy.
  • VOTE: all in favor
• Endorsement of other SDO standards following GOC review of ballot type:
  • Freida not present to discuss GOC position. If a balloter doesn’t endorse, do they have to give a reason? Is it a thumbs up/thumbs down? John: The process that PHER and OASIS arrived at is that PHER would look at the OASIS standard to see if there was anything they’d vote negative on. OASIS had the option of healing the negative. Once the negatives are healed, we endorse. If not, no endorsement. Austin: down the road, if we wanted to develop a standard in the same area, we need to have a mechanism to withdraw the standard. How do we withdraw informatives? Jean: 60% approval for informatives and no reconciliation. John: That’s the reason to go normative, but then ANSI has to approve. Jean: we could ballot it normatively and not send it through ANSI. Or we could have a separate, new ballot type. Ken: Could we assert that we want it at a higher percentage than 60% for endorsements? Lorraine: The OASIS project should be something stronger than informative, but this brings us back to Austin’s concern about withdrawing. Calvin is concerned if we leave it to WGs to choose levels of votes that they wish to impose, it would lead to extreme inconsistencies. Austin: Shares Calvin’s concern. Not having a specific process in the GOM is that each one would become a one-off that has to be handled in a different fashion than the rest of our standards. John R.: One-offs is how we got into this in the first place. Regarding withdrawal – we’re only endorsing the one standard we balloted if we limit this to only ANSI accredited SDOs. Pat: Concern that we need to have a separate process for this that is documented very clearly. Andy: All of these points need to be addressed in the new process and that will solve a lot of these concerns. Woody: How strong is the expectation that people will want to take exception to specific line items as opposed to a yes/no vote? If there’s no reconciliation, then informative may suffice. If not, we would need a different ballot type. Andy: One problem is that you can’t retract informative. Would have to be defined. Austin: Utility of having the comments is it becomes HL7’s feedback regardless of endorsement. If it fails to be endorsed, we can point to why. Tony: why are we endorsing somebody else’s standards, and who cares that we have done it? Ken: Two reasons: lends HL7 support to the document for the other organization and points HL7 members to it as something we endorse. John R.: Hospitals care – emergency departments are reluctant to use OASIS standards as opposed to HL7, so HL7’s endorsement would be meaningful to them.
• Ken summarizes: we’d like to have a new process to deal with endorsements framed similarly to normative but not something we submit to ANSI. Want both affirmative and negative, and negatives need comments. Our intent would be to roll up negatives and send them to org to deal with. Normative process would lend more process to move it forward. We would not maintain the product as one of our own but point to it on the organization’s platform. Indicate that we endorse it but have the ability to withdraw the endorsement after five years, but we would also reserve the right to withdraw it earlier. The endorsement would be for the specific version of the document that we posted in the review ballot. Andy: we would also want some rigor in handling the negatives, i.e., negatives have to be captured and sent on to the organization and there would be a case-by-case agreement regarding how those negatives will be dealt with. How will they change their document? Errata? Or would it go through another ballot? Austin: Ground rules will have to be laid out between the organization on how those comments will be dealt with. May need to be another ballot. But the endorsement is partially about IP ownership. Ken: I don’t think we want to negotiate procedure with every organization. We should be prepared to say that if you want endorsement, this is how we do it.
• Ken summary: Use normative structure without ANSI. Errata should be reviewed by the same group.
  • MOTION to develop a draft process based on these recommendations by John R.; second by Calvin.
  • VOTE: All in favor.
• Pat’s issue put in parking lot earlier in conversation: Would this have to be another SDO? Would we require having a MOU in place? Discussion over SOU vs. MOU. We have associate charters and SOUs. Lorraine also brings up IHE standards that are nested within OASIS standards. Discussion over having a risk assessment before balloting; early step could be ARB review. John R. notes that risks can be listed in the PSS. PIC is looking at items that would need to be added to PSS. ACTION: John R., Pat and Ken will work on drafting the process, then staff will take it to lawyers to make sure it is legally correct/binding.
  • MOTION for John R., Pat, Freida and Ken to work together to draft the SOU or associate charter amendment and the changes to the GOM by Pat; second by Calvin.
  • VOTE: All in favor.
• Next WGM planning:
  • Ken would like to move Sunday night meeting to Wednesday night, and move lunchtime to Thursday. Too many conflicts noted to move Wednesday lunch. After discussion, it is revealed that Sunday is perhaps the best option. Sunday and Tuesday would be the only options.
• Review of open issues
  • 2165 complete
  • 2585 close; add new one to deal with identifying process to build member benefit from IP and categorize and identify what is free IP and what isn’t; Ken and Pat will be point people.
  • 2788 – close and open a new one with open project for 5 years at the main meeting
  • ACTION: add status called e-vote
  • 3283 – close
  • 3271 – is currently being reviewed by publishing; close TSC tracker.
  • 3028 – will look at where this is this week/John R. will check with Melva
• Q3
• Standards Governance Board – SGB is meeting this Friday. Ken: We need a process where people communication between FGB and SGB. Woody wonders if there is a framework for the things that SGB is dealing with? Lorraine: there is a draft of that in the BAM. Paul: will be more concrete at the end of this week. Woody: issues that come up right now are being addressed by the FGB and the FMG. If we add another layer of SGB approval it adds more time. Ken: there is representation from FGB on SGB. Paul: what things are being held up? Lorraine: the major topics that were referred to SGB to discuss – rules for development of PSSs and product-family related approval process draft. Woody states he doesn’t want to see every decision FGB makes having to go up to SGB. Lorraine states it should be items that impact other product families as well. We should articulate that as we finish defining this. Calvin: FGB agenda has been very light. A third issue beyond the two we mentioned is the FHIR.org. Paul: I think the organization needs to come to an understanding of what that is and articulate it out to the membership. Ken states he is unclear if it is a TSC issue. Paul: As a TSC we are responsible for everything below the board with respect to the development of our standards. Ken: FHIR.org seems to be board-level management. Paul: we did determine at TSC that the registry needed to occur. That has or has not been moved to FHIR.org based on who you listen to. FGB should definitely have knowledge of that. We don’t have sufficient clarity on the issue to determine whether it’s a TSC issue or not. Pat: can we articulate what some of the questions are and capture them? Paul: we have received answers that are in conflict. Ken: is this an FGB question? Paul: governance bodies shouldn’t necessarily be responsible for relations outside of the organization. The answers need to be coming from the top level of the organization and the lack of information makes us a less cohesive organization. Part of the issue is FHIR.org is seen as not standards development but supportive to the implementation community. Concerned that Grahame is discussing Board decisions before the Board has released the decisions. Communication needs to be cleaner. Grahame is the de facto product director for FHIR; Lorraine states that we could support him better in that role so everything isn’t all on his shoulders. Ken: part of the issue is that we’ve identified people informally as product leaders/managers and we’ve done a poor job of articulating those roles. Paul: we have a lack of actual formal definition of what these roles are and how to support and protect the people in those roles. Ken: we need to be more intentional about putting this together and talking about what the product manager role would look like. It’s hard to understand what that is without a job description. We need to define this in terms of creation, maintenance, publishing, etc. Woody states that this would be problematic in a volunteer organization, giving someone that much responsibility without paying them.
  • MOTION that TSC should define scope of responsibilities for product manager by Paul. Second by Sandy. Friendly amendment by Ken: Ken heard in the conversation that there are two roles – product manager and product facilitator. Calvin: Need a definition of roles, not how we fill them. There are sets of discrete roles that get aggregated under titles. Publishing, marketing, communications, for example. Paul: maybe we take on defining the roles which are necessary to support the publication of materials, from product managers to facilitators to creators – then later look at connecting those roles to individuals or committees. Woody: the role of the product manager will be dependent on the size/scope of the product. Ken: this should be owned by both ARB and SGB. Paul states we should include the CTO, and Lorraine adds PLA. Lorraine: SGB and ARB are responsible, CTO and PLA consulting. Austin suggests we invite participation from those who have been serving in those roles for guidance.
  • Revised MOTION that ARB and SGB and CTO should define the roles involved in product management and facilitation in consultation with PLA. Second by Sandy. Groups will come back with proposed timeline; initial draft framework by May.
  • VOTE: All in favor.
• FHIR publishing process meeting planning:
  • Ken mentions confusion around FHIR version numbers. Paul describes the version being a technical identifier. The general public uses the DSTU number. Andy: this is a page designed for developers, not managers. Lorraine: if we want to go back now and produce any of those past versions, we can’t because we stopped tagging the releases. Paul: we can go back in the log to find out when it was taken.
  • Original topic was integrating FHIR publishing process with HL7 publishing processes. Will repackage tomorrow’s meeting – cancel original meeting. Will have a smaller TSC meeting during that time for those who are available to flesh out key issues around this topic.
• Questions around FHIR.org:
  • We need to understand

Q4:

• Revealed superpowers that people previously chose
• Strategic initiative process review:
  • Part of WG 3 year planning was around strategy. With the multi-year program, do we need them to manage to that, and if so we need a strategy statement. Group discusses whether strategy is appropriate at WG level. Group agrees that’s above the WG level.
  • Pat reports Board is discussing doing a strategic plan. Andy: we need a strategic plan for HL7 before discussing WG strategy.
• Tooling:
  • EST project with ARB cosponsor. Paul has drafted something to be brought forward to EST this week.
• WG Health Metrics:
  • Reviewed WG health reports.
    • DESD – John R. reports that Child Health nearly disintegrated but they’re trying to come back; only has 3 active people. Lorraine notes that Anatomic Pathology is doing work. Should Child Health be a project under another WG? John R. states there’s hope for them despite slow progress. CBCC: two significant people retired. John R. and Melva are assessing. Anatomic Pathology: discussion over their lack of participation.
    • FTSD: CIMI issues are simply because they’re new. SOA has seen great improvement. Templates should be automatically red because they didn’t post minutes.
    • SSD-SD: All WGs doing a good job. Imaging down to one co-chair (Harry Solomon) who may be looking at phasing out. Elliot Silver is the other cochair.
    • T3SD: IM doesn’t have a M&C or DMP. Discussion over whether or not they are a Board Committee. Rest of T3SD is exemplary and Ken asks Andy to pass that along to cochairs. Lorraine notes that despite the gold star, EST is struggling. Ken notes the lack of value proposition for companies to send their employees to do the kind of work T3SD WGs do. How do we prop these WGs up? Not enough membership; heavy on cochairs. Lorraine suggests promoting the work these WGs do to the membership. Andy notes lack of participants in publishing. There is a threat to us if T3SD doesn’t continue to survive – how do we make sure it survives? How do we get people engaged? Austin: Most of these WGs have staff support. Lorraine: the involvement we have in the decisions are evolving more to staff or board level, which is alienating the volunteers. Others note that same sentiment, from education specifically. If you want people to get involved the work has to be seen and valued. John R. – let’s just ask our larger organizational members. Lorraine: lack of organizational strategic plan has affected T3SD the most. Andy: rapid changes also affect this group the most; notes decisions such as eliminating speaker honorariums without telling the education cochairs who were recruiting speakers. International Mentoring is working on breaking into the African continent but feels a lack of support, and has no Board confirmation that it’s a strategic goal. Ken: John R. suggested reaching out to Benefactors for volunteers. Lorraine: EST (Jeff Brown) started drafting a letter awhile back about the value of volunteering with EST. That material could perhaps be resurrected and generalized for the steering division as a whole and sent to the benefactors. Question about where the letter or call should come from? Feeling is that it should come from Board or EC. Lorraine: these WGs also have a very tight connection to staff. Committees and staff need to have the same expectations of communication standards. Ken: So we’re looking at educating WGs on what kinds of skillsets T3SD is looking for. We need to get Jeff Brown’s letter and build a marketing campaign highlighting the different available WGs. Ken will work with EC. Ken notes that LHS and HSI are not on the report? Andy reports that LHS is because they are moving to DESD. Ken states we need to leave them on the report for T3SD until after the vote by DESD. Discussion over WGs showing a 30% increase in gold star earners and Lynn reporting that ballots are cleaner. Ken will highlight at the dinner.
• Adjourned at 5:07

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .