Meeting-20090111

TSC Dinner/Meeting

Sunday January 11, 2009 6pm-8pm

Call to order 6:17 pm Sunday 1/11/09

• Attendees: Calvin Beebe, Woody Beeler, Jane Curry, Marc Koehn, John Koisch, Austin Kreisler, Lynn Laakso, Patrick Loyd, Ken McCaslin, Charlie McCay, Charlie Mead, Ravi Natarajan, John Quinn, Gregg Seppala, Ioana Singureanu, Helen Stevens Love, Ed Tripp, and Karen VanHentenryck

1. Architecture Rollout Discussion, continued.
   • The “Alpha project” is not the same as getting the SAEAF document rolled out to the organization. The Rollout project is different, likely a subproject to the arch rollout. Two organizations are ready to implement: NCI and another from Europe. NCI deployed four services last Monday developed under SAEAF architecture. Need PSS - Or ballot the artifact, the services, versus present them as examples of this is the new way in which an artifact would be balloted.
   • Arch rollout project has education/change management as well as pilot/alpha project component.
   • MOTION: Helen moved to create pre-project planning phase, or Phase 0 project, to define architecture rollout project, second by Charlie Mead, that includes budget, timeline and scope. This would be a TSC project, not at SD or WG level. Helen further volunteers to help.
   • DISCUSSION:
     • ArB tells us what the artifacts have to look like (consist of, content). One cannot define criteria for success of alpha project until larger rollout is defined.
     • VA/DoD project sent out earlier by Government WG posing itself as alpha project.
     • Need a project proposal for pre-project; pre-project deliverable is a complete project charter, timeline, tracks and deliverables, budget for the Rollout Project.
     • Charlie Mead indicates this is a top-down approach, but a bottom-up approach is more represented in the pilot, to take one thread of the larger project and see how that rolls out. ET says you can also run both.
     • Marc Koehn (MK) states: We have a document for architectural framework, but no document of how to implement. Paint a picture of what the project would look like. Middle of the road; get a document on the table to have something on the process to get a mind-meld.
     • Jane suggests we have two rollout alpha projects, VA / DoD more top-down and NCI more bottom up.
     • MK suggests get together a group tomorrow for a brief paper to outline options and discuss at Tuesday lunch.
   • MOTION (amended) - Helen amended motion, second by Charlie Mead to: “Direct Marc K. to put together a project proposal for pre-project/Phase 0, to bring something to us on Tuesday (versus original motion of scope to define full rollout project); in parallel, direct someone to initiate an alpha project as proof of concept to feed information into full rollout project.” unanimously approved.
   • Suggested: One alpha project should be messaging-based, one should be services-based.
   • ACTION ITEM: Lynn - See if we can get a room, send information to TSCAdmins list.
2. Issues list review, continued
   • 745: Admin support to the WGs; reviewed cost spreadsheet based on conference call history. Group decided to think about this some more, and have HQ staff come back with piloting proposal. There is interest.
   • 854 Issues surrounding the January 2009 ballot: reviewed Woody’s email proposal.
     • MOTION by Woody, Second by Helen. TSC endorses recommendation from V3 publishing WG. TSC recommends to treat a negative ballot without comment the same in informative as in normative ballot. Unanimously approved.
3. ISO datatype wrappers: “infrastructure uplift planning”.
   • Significant change to products. MnM discussing with InM Monday Q4. TSC needs to be aware, coordinating with Marketing etc. Woody suggests both switches to R2 in normative edition at same time in 2010. MnM will bring recommendation to TSC.
   • Timing of notification of new WG projects:
     • MOTION: ET propose notification of new project only after it comes to TSC. “PSS will be distributed to the cochairs as they come to the TSC with a week or more timeframe before vote in the TSC.” AK second.
     • Discussion: In Clarification, it comes to the TSC after going through SD, but a week before coming to the TSC agenda for review. This applies to all projects, including Board projects, marketing etc. Unanimously approved.
4. PSS Review:
   • Need description on “public document”.
   • Issue for TSC: product list is out of date and unhelpful. Woody create a draft new product list.
   • MOTION: Accept pending two revisions: Add modifier to 1 to check box implementation guide and description of “public document”. Moved by Helen, second Charlie Mead, unanimously approved.
5. DMP:
   • Requested that the Notes: under Instructions: bullet 4, change Jan 2009 WGM to May 2009, and as changes are made to DMP’s use the template to update but not automatically supersede their existing DMP.
   • MOTION: Approve with these modifications, moved by Austin, Second by Ken. Unanimously approved
6. Return to TOOLING discussion:
   • Budget 100k? John thought it should be 300k.
   • Estimated $1.7M for full professional requirements gathering and professional software development over the entire project, global picture.
   • With that budget for this year, will be a minimalist approach.
   • What does the TSC recommend? Can’t do much with only $100k. NHS has already made considerable investment in a tool, we can hope to use.
   • Charlie Mead; what is the overlap of tools that might be picked up by OHT. What % of our tools would those outside of HL7 be interested in?
   • Jane says all of our tools have had interest by others. We have work to do to even participate with OHT’s tools: Woody, Helen’s Infoway, etc contributions into MIF needed to coordinate with OHT-enabled tooling.
   • Ravi: NHS investment over 1M pounds. Static modeling development completed 1st phase and starting 2nd phase. Charlie Mead says CTS2 may have a benefactor to fully fund that development.
   • What does TSC want to say to the BOD? We could continue the discussion Tuesday lunch?
   • We have done the planning, and have a list of tools that need to be built, bought, whatever… but no money. Tooling development plan could be a product of the meeting but how do we prioritize based on the limited funding. Need $300k/year for next three years.
   • MOTION: Calvin says TSC has a better understanding of the tooling issues, TSC should ask the Board to fund at John’s expectation level, 300-350K per year for next three years. Calvin moved JQ second; Ioana abstain, passed.
   • Ioana; look for in-kind contribution for very specific deliverables.

Adjourn 8:15pm