2018-09-30 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Sunday meeting for Baltimore WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Frederick		Date: 2018-09-30 Time: 5:15 PM
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 Board Chair
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Floyd Eisenberg	HL7 Clinical SD Co-Chair
x	Russ Hamm	HL7 Infrastructure SD Co-chair
?	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 Infrastructure SD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	TSC Chair, Administrative SD Co-Chair
?	Wayne Kubick	HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x	Ken McCaslin	Adhoc Member
x	Mary Kay McDaniel	Administrative SD Co-Chair
?	Riki Merrick	Administrative SD Co-Chair Elect
x	Melva Peters	HL7 Clinical SD Co-Chair
x	John Roberts	Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
?	Andy Stechishin	HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
x	Sandra Stuart	HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
x	Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

1. Reminder: TSC Evaluation of Staff Support
   • https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Sept2018TSC
2. Urgent request from FHIR core to do a rapid out-of-cycle ballot for FHIR R4
3. ArB
4. Management group reports
   1. FHIR
   2. CDA
   3. V2

Wednesday lunch

1. Issues from the week
2. Formalizing Product Family Management Council
3. (September) Review TSC SWOT

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Guests: Brett Marquard (CDAMG), Lisa Nelson (CDAMG), Lloyd McKenzie (FMG), Rachel Forester, Lynn Laakso, Frank Oemig (V2MG)
2. Reminder: TSC Evaluation of Staff Support
   • https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Sept2018TSC
     • Austin reminds members to fill out the TSC staff evaluation
3. Urgent request from FHIR core to do a rapid out-of-cycle ballot for FHIR R4
   • FMG would like TSC to consider an out of cycle ballot for FHIR R4 – Terminology, Infrastructure, and Observation normative ballot. Lynn clarifies that it’s an early opening to the January ballot that would end early. Lloyd explains that in the last ballot, the terminology WG introduced a constraint on value set that was not well considered and not noticed by the people who were impacted until this ballot. The value sets to be published don’t agree with the constraint and implementers don’t like it. General consensus is that it needs to be gone. There is a workaround that we could include an element in the instance with an extension explaining it, but it’s not how we want things to work. If they decide they can tolerate it, then we might not go to ballot, but the group is examining the issue. There is a decent likelihood that they will want to fix it, which would require a return to ballot. Also the language in the ballot regarding what changes we can make after normative needs to be updated. We can change that in R5 but if they go back to ballot we’ll fix it now. OO doesn’t have specifics but they know they have around 3 items that have potential to drive change. Looking for approval for Observation just in case. Lynn states we could open invitation for participants on 10/6, with the ballot opening on 11/5 and closing on 12/5. We expect to do a recirculation which is another two weeks. Scope of the ballot would only be the things that are changing. The pressure to do this as an OOC is two fold: a number of stakeholders have a strong need for an official FHIR release this year, and limitations and obligations in Grahame’s world. Lorraine: Have you been through enough triage to know there aren’t other issues? Lloyd: High confidence that nothing more will come up in terms of substantive change. Austin: All reconciliation has to be completed before ballot opening. Lloyd: The timeline for us to have reconciliation packages posted for the normative packages is 10/14. That was even before this issue arose. Jean: ONC’s deadlines aren’t that important. Is there any way that we can take Grahame out of the loop? Lloyd: Not yet. Lorraine: There is a long term goal to get Grahame out of publishing. My first reaction to this request was that the WGs will be terrified of the tight deadlines and that shuts down conversation. Lloyd: The deadlines were driven by the fact that we didn’t necessarily intend to have a second ballot on all of the normatives. When we decided we were going to, it was on the grounds that if there was substantive change, the ballot would be limited to only the substantive changes. We were told that we couldn’t do that. A lot of the feedback we got isn’t related to the changes. Lloyd describes reconciliation guidance given to WGs. In the end it’s the WG’s call. Discussion over what Grahame’s publication process would be. Jean: So we’re saying that the knowledge transfer can’t happen in the next 8 weeks for someone else to do Grahame’s publication process. Lloyd: We’re continuing to work on the process to make it less intensive, but adding knowledge transfer into this timeframe is going to make things worse.
   • Lorraine asks if the WGs are okay with the extra work. Lloyd: We are confident that the community will be okay with this based on our conversations with them. Many of the impacts will be outside of the WGs. The STU reconciliation deadline is 10/14, however FMG decided today to relax that. Jean: Is this the only way we can get these substantive changes in? Do we need a whole ballot? Austin: There isn’t for a normative. There may be something in the future to accommodate smaller updates such as this.
   • Austin is concerned that when we announce this, other group will try to pile things into this OOC. It will be up to the TSC to say no. MK: I understand Grahame’s issue but I don’t understand the other negative impacts if we don’t get this reballoted now. What is the impact of a delay of publication to external stakeholders? Lloyd is unsure. The big issue for FMG and for our product director is that he can’t do it. MK asks for more specific dates. Jean: So we could say we’re going to do it right away and it’s done December/January, or we say we can live with the delay, do the knowledge transfer, and publish in May/June. Paul: We have time and availability to do it now.
     • MOTION to approve the out of cycle ballot as requested: Floyd/Paul
     • Discussion: John asks about reunifying the ballots. Jean: Does this out of cycle ballot affect your time? Lloyd: Not significantly because there’s no QA or stuff other than making sure reconciliation is in. Lorraine to Lynn: Does this affect preparations for other ballots? Lynn: No. It means the NIB form will open during the WGM with alternate ballot dates in it. Jean: In FMG you also talked about saying no to FHIR ballots in January? Lloyd: We talked about that but we decided there’s one FHIR IG – US Core R4 – that we are likely to defer until May, we will not switch the tooling approach between now and the next WGM, we will be asking hard questions of the people who come forward to ballot, and stating that the ballot has a real purpose with solid content. We’re not balloting for balloting’s sake. We will likely do one IG.
     • AMENDED MOTION to approve the out of cycle ballots as requested: Floyd/Paul
     • VOTE: Clinical SD opposed. Jean opposed. John abstains. ARB, Infrastructure, Administrative, Ken, Calvin, Giorgio, Organizational Support SD in favor.
     • MK states we need to make sure this doesn’t happen again. One person cannot be responsible for publishing a standard. John wonders what effect funding had on this issue.
       • ACTION: Anne to add addressing these issues to an upcoming agenda.
4. Management group reports
   1. FHIR
      • Lots of reconciliation going on. 284 connectathon participants. Put together timeframes for the January ballot. How many Da Vinci or other large projects brought people in/where are the newcomers coming from? Lloyd will look into it.
   2. CDA
      • Lisa reports that they’ve been coming up to speed, establishing guiding principles, performing an inventory of CDA products. Made some revisions to our membership to add QRDA representative. Also added an implementer. Then we started doing some improvements. The CDA IG was impossible to find. One of our main things has been aligning with the other product families. We looked at the grid that FHIR uses to see what the current version is and the prior versions; then we revised the product page to reflect. Jean reports that it has made his life much easier. Have spent some time dealing with value set changing, working to improve the ability to publish needed value sets in the VSAC. We’re in much better shape and have them accounted for. Have started to process some errata against the VSAC packages. If there are small errata releases it lists the date it came out and where you go to get it. Going into the end of the year, we’ve been focusing on our roadmap. What are the categories that we should be planning for in our roadmap? Education, maintenance, enhancements, international support and alignment, etc. These are helping the product family be worked on across many WGs. Looked at how we can best apply our time as volunteers and took everyone’s interest into account. We split up what we can work on and this week we have a prioritized roadmap for the coming year that aligns with our priorities and mission and charter. Next year we’ll look into supporting and adopting guidance for practical implementation as we move into more maturity. Our biggest challenge is attendance. As a team it’s hard when everyone isn’t there. We tried a policy where people can’t miss more than three times in a row. Need to look at how we deal with commitments and schedules. Lorraine: Do you anticipate that there will be tooling and publishing related needs? Lisa: The biggest area we’re working toward is that we have three different main tools we use. There’s a normative document that is only supported by one of the tools. We’ve been looking at the use of structure definition to support CDA templates. We’re going to have to talk to the tooling folks. Giorgio: I heard a lot about C-CDA and VSAC. What about UTG? Lisa: We struggle with the international dimension. We have been including analysis across the IPS. The UTG is another big area where we need to be teaming over the three year span to figure out how those two efforts coordinate together. We have a new version of the base standard coming out. Melva: It’s important that this is universal and international. We have deferred creating a management group for CIMI because we don’t have international participation; it concerns me that this is a product family that is used around the world and we’re making it US centric and concentrating on C-CDA. Frank asks if they collect information about international IGs? Austin replies they were challenged to look at what has been balloted within HL7 International. Jean: That was the first step, but we recognize we need knowledge about what’s going on internationally. We need to have links and pointers to international guides. Lisa: We need to have a templates registry; if there was a registry then even work balloted in an affiliate country could be in that registry. Austin recommends that Frank take the balloting and membership issues to the board as these issues are beyond the TSC’s purview. Calvin states there was an invitation from the board for dialogue about how we manage improving collaboration with affiliates. Melva: Wasn’t there a project at the board level? Lynn reports it was called SHARE. Hasn’t published a SHARE document in a year or two. Frank: We should be able to publish our implementation guides and it is frustrating. Paul: How many people are coming to committee meetings? Lisa: Somewhere before 4 and 9. Are there people who aren’t showing up at all? No. Jean reports it’s not the same people missing every time. Have been able to maintain quorum.
   3. V2: Have had first call. Still looking at what they need to work on and setting up regular calls. Have tried to start with mission and charter, DMP, etc. Austin: TSC is working on a new DMP for steering divisions that may be applicable. Frank: What we would like to do as a management group is consensus rather than rely on quorum. Tony volunteers to help Frank with making that change. We would also like to start our product inventory, including adding international localizations. Also trying to get 2.9 out. Faced with some problems regarding number of editors. Everyone is more interested in FHIR, but we have to make progress with V2 because of FHIR.
5. Adjourned at 6:23 pm

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

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .