Difference between revisions of "2016-05-11 TSC WGM Agenda"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Anne wizauer (talk | contribs) |
Anne wizauer (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|width="40%"|'''Affiliation''' | |width="40%"|'''Affiliation''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair |
|- | |- | ||
|Regrets||Woody Beeler||TSC Member Emeritus | |Regrets||Woody Beeler||TSC Member Emeritus | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ARB Co-Chair |
|- | |- | ||
|Regrets||Gora Datta||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair | |Regrets||Gora Datta||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative |
|- | |- | ||
|Regrets||Freida Hall||Adhoc Member - GOM Expert | |Regrets||Freida Hall||Adhoc Member - GOM Expert | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Russ Hamm||HL7 FTSD Co-chair |
|- | |- | ||
|?||Stan Huff||HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ''ex officio'' w/ vote) | |?||Stan Huff||HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ''ex officio'' w/ vote) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
|?||Chuck Jaffe||HL7 CEO (member ''ex officio'' w/o 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||Wayne Kubick||HL7 CTO (TSC member ''ex officio'' w/vote) |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Ken McCaslin (Chair) |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |x||John Roberts||HL7 DESD Co-chair |
|- | |- | ||
|Regrets||Andy Stechishin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair | |Regrets||Andy Stechishin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:== | ==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:== | ||
| − | + | *Called to order at 12:43 | |
| − | + | *FHIR Repository Process and Requirements Phase 1 PSS | |
| − | + | **Ken believes the right thing is happening and the right groups. US Realm and FMG will be looking at it this week. Did not pass at DEDS for a variety of reasons. Calvin mentions that there has been discussion that there should also be a more general repository/registry. Melva sent Anne the most recent version for the FMG/FGB agenda tomorrow. | |
| − | + | *CIMI Clinical Model Proof of Concept | |
| − | + | **Discussion over updates to document. ARB is interested in project. Discussion over the most recent version and items falling through the cracks. Discussion over why CIMI is not the sponsor. Should go to ARB if it is really a new product. Calvin suggests also checking that we have adequate CIMI team representation. | |
| − | + | ***MOTION to send to ARB for evaluation by Melva; second by Austin | |
| − | + | ***VOTE: all in favor | |
| − | + | ***ACTION: Anne to contact Jay Lyle to relay the message to coordinate with ARB. | |
| − | + | *Proposal to create a new Open Source Workgroup as part of the Agreement to merge Open Health Tools into HL7 (Wayne) | |
| + | **Open Health Tools are now coming into HL7 and want an Open Source WG. First step is to reach out to CTO/TSC chair for an initial suggestion on steering division assignment. Calvin: Should it be a new WG? The relationship between the existing tooling group and this new tooling group could cause tension and complexity. Until we get the new WG formation proposal it’s impossible to answer. Andy feels they should fit within EST. Paul: are they building tools themselves or curate products built by others? Knowing the answer to that is important to determine where they should go. Wayne: This has been approved by the Board and opens up several questions. OHT is a community repository. Lorraine: Tooling has a long history of cooperating with OHT. | ||
| + | *Zulip update: | ||
| + | **Lorraine: In yesterday’s FGB meeting, discussion came up that the FHIR team has been approached by other groups to move their communications to Zulip (Skype, etc.). 1) Overhead is low for adding new people but who will manage, and 2) Should groups be allowed to talk about issues other than FHIR? Jean: Was FHIR’s use of Zulip a test or a firm decision? In CDA and Structured Docs space we set up a slack channel that we’re testing. Calvin: Could cause fragmentation while incurring efficiency. Paul: Other orgs gather requirements, assess products against requirements, make their selections and move forward. Need to use our resources and processes. Lorraine: It meets our requirement for modern communication and tooling and should come into that context. Melva: Frustrated that the listserves are not being used anymore and everything has moved to Zulip. Domain committees aren’t given an opportunity, if not on Zulip 24/7, to weigh in. It is hard to deal with the move. Not sure how we deal with this as an organization. Paul: Yes, we have responsibilities for transparency, curation, etc. Russ agrees with Paul and Melva. Ken: Summarizes that we don’t want any other platform until we have a PSS articulating the expectation and the requirements, until we pilot and test it, and then put together an expectation and outcome of what and how that tool should be used. Lorraine: One challenge is that it was FHIR.org and not HL7. They did go through an evaluation process around being able to curate and publish the feeds. Ken: that’s why I think we need to be deliberate about evaluating its use for HL7. Wayne: The reality is they ran out of Skype capacity and had a Connectathon coming up. They tend to move very quickly. Had there been a CTO in place at the time, maybe it would’ve been different. It’s a good tool that we could use in our organization if we believe it’s appropriate. Wayne proposes that it’s okay for FHIR to use it, but not expand the scope beyond the FHIR Community until we know where it fits within our future plans for tools and architecture. | ||
| + | ***MOTION by Paul that we do not want to expand Zulip to other WGs until we have a project scope statement put together and brought forth to determine what the tool should be moving forward. Second by Melva. | ||
| + | ***VOTE: Jean and Austin abstain. Remaining in favor. | ||
| + | *Adjourned at 12:32 PM Eastern | ||
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" | {|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" | ||
Latest revision as of 19:03, 11 May 2016
TSC Wednesday meeting for Montreal WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes
| HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2015-10-03 Time: (9:00 am Eastern) | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation |
| x | Calvin Beebe | HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair |
| Regrets | Woody Beeler | TSC Member Emeritus |
| x | Giorgio Cangioli | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| x | Lorraine Constable | HL7 ARB Co-Chair |
| Regrets | Gora Datta | HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair |
| x | Jean Duteau | HL7 Affiliate Representative |
| Regrets | Freida Hall | Adhoc Member - GOM Expert |
| x | 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 | Wayne Kubick | HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote) |
| x | Ken McCaslin (Chair) | |
| x | Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) | HL7 HQ |
| x | Melva Peters | HL7 DESD Co-Chair |
| x | John Roberts | HL7 DESD Co-chair |
| Regrets | Andy Stechishin | HL7 T3SD Co-Chair |
| Regrets|Sandra Stuart | HL7 T3SD Co-Chair | |
| ? | 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
- Review projects open 4+ years
- e-Vote item referred for discussion:
- CIMI Clinical Model Proof of Concept - updated PSS
- Referred by Freida: New product definition checked - is further TSC action required?
- ARB: SD approval missing (resolved); most dates on the timeline have passed (also noted by Wayne); Investigative project not checked; ARB may be interested in the project
- CIMI Clinical Model Proof of Concept - updated PSS
- Discussion
- FHIR Repository Process and Requirements Phase 1 PSS (Melva, John)
- Proposal to create a new Open Source Workgroup as part of the Agreement to merge Open Health Tools into HL7 (Wayne)
- Zulip update (Lorraine)
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Called to order at 12:43
- FHIR Repository Process and Requirements Phase 1 PSS
- Ken believes the right thing is happening and the right groups. US Realm and FMG will be looking at it this week. Did not pass at DEDS for a variety of reasons. Calvin mentions that there has been discussion that there should also be a more general repository/registry. Melva sent Anne the most recent version for the FMG/FGB agenda tomorrow.
- CIMI Clinical Model Proof of Concept
- Discussion over updates to document. ARB is interested in project. Discussion over the most recent version and items falling through the cracks. Discussion over why CIMI is not the sponsor. Should go to ARB if it is really a new product. Calvin suggests also checking that we have adequate CIMI team representation.
- MOTION to send to ARB for evaluation by Melva; second by Austin
- VOTE: all in favor
- ACTION: Anne to contact Jay Lyle to relay the message to coordinate with ARB.
- Discussion over updates to document. ARB is interested in project. Discussion over the most recent version and items falling through the cracks. Discussion over why CIMI is not the sponsor. Should go to ARB if it is really a new product. Calvin suggests also checking that we have adequate CIMI team representation.
- Proposal to create a new Open Source Workgroup as part of the Agreement to merge Open Health Tools into HL7 (Wayne)
- Open Health Tools are now coming into HL7 and want an Open Source WG. First step is to reach out to CTO/TSC chair for an initial suggestion on steering division assignment. Calvin: Should it be a new WG? The relationship between the existing tooling group and this new tooling group could cause tension and complexity. Until we get the new WG formation proposal it’s impossible to answer. Andy feels they should fit within EST. Paul: are they building tools themselves or curate products built by others? Knowing the answer to that is important to determine where they should go. Wayne: This has been approved by the Board and opens up several questions. OHT is a community repository. Lorraine: Tooling has a long history of cooperating with OHT.
- Zulip update:
- Lorraine: In yesterday’s FGB meeting, discussion came up that the FHIR team has been approached by other groups to move their communications to Zulip (Skype, etc.). 1) Overhead is low for adding new people but who will manage, and 2) Should groups be allowed to talk about issues other than FHIR? Jean: Was FHIR’s use of Zulip a test or a firm decision? In CDA and Structured Docs space we set up a slack channel that we’re testing. Calvin: Could cause fragmentation while incurring efficiency. Paul: Other orgs gather requirements, assess products against requirements, make their selections and move forward. Need to use our resources and processes. Lorraine: It meets our requirement for modern communication and tooling and should come into that context. Melva: Frustrated that the listserves are not being used anymore and everything has moved to Zulip. Domain committees aren’t given an opportunity, if not on Zulip 24/7, to weigh in. It is hard to deal with the move. Not sure how we deal with this as an organization. Paul: Yes, we have responsibilities for transparency, curation, etc. Russ agrees with Paul and Melva. Ken: Summarizes that we don’t want any other platform until we have a PSS articulating the expectation and the requirements, until we pilot and test it, and then put together an expectation and outcome of what and how that tool should be used. Lorraine: One challenge is that it was FHIR.org and not HL7. They did go through an evaluation process around being able to curate and publish the feeds. Ken: that’s why I think we need to be deliberate about evaluating its use for HL7. Wayne: The reality is they ran out of Skype capacity and had a Connectathon coming up. They tend to move very quickly. Had there been a CTO in place at the time, maybe it would’ve been different. It’s a good tool that we could use in our organization if we believe it’s appropriate. Wayne proposes that it’s okay for FHIR to use it, but not expand the scope beyond the FHIR Community until we know where it fits within our future plans for tools and architecture.
- MOTION by Paul that we do not want to expand Zulip to other WGs until we have a project scope statement put together and brought forth to determine what the tool should be moving forward. Second by Melva.
- VOTE: Jean and Austin abstain. Remaining in favor.
- Lorraine: In yesterday’s FGB meeting, discussion came up that the FHIR team has been approached by other groups to move their communications to Zulip (Skype, etc.). 1) Overhead is low for adding new people but who will manage, and 2) Should groups be allowed to talk about issues other than FHIR? Jean: Was FHIR’s use of Zulip a test or a firm decision? In CDA and Structured Docs space we set up a slack channel that we’re testing. Calvin: Could cause fragmentation while incurring efficiency. Paul: Other orgs gather requirements, assess products against requirements, make their selections and move forward. Need to use our resources and processes. Lorraine: It meets our requirement for modern communication and tooling and should come into that context. Melva: Frustrated that the listserves are not being used anymore and everything has moved to Zulip. Domain committees aren’t given an opportunity, if not on Zulip 24/7, to weigh in. It is hard to deal with the move. Not sure how we deal with this as an organization. Paul: Yes, we have responsibilities for transparency, curation, etc. Russ agrees with Paul and Melva. Ken: Summarizes that we don’t want any other platform until we have a PSS articulating the expectation and the requirements, until we pilot and test it, and then put together an expectation and outcome of what and how that tool should be used. Lorraine: One challenge is that it was FHIR.org and not HL7. They did go through an evaluation process around being able to curate and publish the feeds. Ken: that’s why I think we need to be deliberate about evaluating its use for HL7. Wayne: The reality is they ran out of Skype capacity and had a Connectathon coming up. They tend to move very quickly. Had there been a CTO in place at the time, maybe it would’ve been different. It’s a good tool that we could use in our organization if we believe it’s appropriate. Wayne proposes that it’s okay for FHIR to use it, but not expand the scope beyond the FHIR Community until we know where it fits within our future plans for tools and architecture.
- Adjourned at 12:32 PM Eastern
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
