FTSD-F2F-20090511

Foundation and Technology Steering Division Workgroup Meeting

FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division

Attendees

• Vocabulary
  • Ted Klein
  • Beverly Knight
  • Russ Hamm
  • Jobst Landgrebe
• Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
  • Grahame Grieve
  • Sandy Stuart
• Implementation/Conformance
  • Jane Gilbert
  • Frank Oemig
• Security
  • Bernd Blobel
• Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
  • Charlie McCay
  • Paul Knapp
  • Dale Nelson
• Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
  • Ken Rubin
• Templates
  • Mark Shafarman
• Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
  • Grahame Grieve
  • Woody Beeler
  • Dale Nelson
• RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)

Summarized

• This weeks TSC discussions inre:
  • Update Work Group 3-yr plans at/by September WGM: What is it?
  • Value of reviewing Board Roadmap projects from Work Group perspectives: What is it?
  • Positioning of current work in re Enterprise Architecture Framework publications: : What is it?
  • Intent to review/release SAEAF documentation on a trimester cycle: When is the first review scheduled?

Discussion of Low Attendance at SD Conference Calls

Briefly, the repetitive schedule is a burden because the content seems of little real import. Calls are not engaging the Work Group Co-Chairs in the critical decisions of the TSC.

Ways to "Engage" the Work Groups

• Find the shared "Hot Topics" or Issues that Co-chairs feel will improve HL7 and the TSC
• Use SD as vehicle in which to share strategies for dealing with ballot issues that are particularly "thorny' (Example from Vocab in re CTS2 ballot)
• Address issues that underlie the continuing perception that the EAF is being done "to" the Work Groups rather than "with" or "by" the Work Groups.
  • Perception that comments and reviews are not read and responded to
  • Seems no formal feed back of "response" to comments, just a "thank you" is not reasonable
  • Slide decks seem to have little "meat" to them
  • Unclear what the organization (presumably the TSC) means by endorsing SAEAF
    • Paraphrase of one response was: "The TSC and HL7 are committed to implementing a new Enterprise Architecture based on the initial work in SAEAF. The architecture will evolve over time, as we (all of HL7) learns what works/what doesn't; what meets needs of HL7 clients and customers, etc. BUT there is a commitment to grow with the SAEAF and ARB process."
• Agreed to keep discussion of how best to - understand, review, interact with, contribute to, test - the SAEAF as a major thread or set thereof on the SD list.

Adjourned at 8:15

• Agreed to push a discussion on the SD list of the ways that the SAEAF evolution