Difference between revisions of "2010-07-19 TSC Call Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:
 
-->
 
-->
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
−
{{:TSC Meetings}}
 
  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
Line 36: Line 35:
 
|regrets||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|regrets||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
+
|x||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
 
|?||Bob Dolin||HL7 Board Chair
 
|?||Bob Dolin||HL7 Board Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Austin Kreisler||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
+
|x||Austin Kreisler||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Lynn Laakso ||HL7 staff support
+
|x||Lynn Laakso ||HL7 staff support
 
|-
 
|-
 
|regrets||Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
 
|regrets||Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Line 48: Line 47:
 
|regrets||Charlie McCay (chair)||HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
 
|regrets||Charlie McCay (chair)||HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB Chair
+
|x||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB Chair
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|regrets||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
 
|?||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternate
 
|?||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternate
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||John Quinn||HL7 CTO
+
|x||John Quinn||HL7 CTO
 
|-
 
|-
−
|?||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
 
|regrets||Helen Stevens ||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
 
|regrets||Helen Stevens ||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Line 63: Line 62:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|?||D. Mead Walker||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|?||D. Mead Walker||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
−
|-
 
−
| || ||
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ||
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ||
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="3" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|colspan="3" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
Line 74: Line 67:
  
 
<br/><br/>
 
<br/><br/>
−
'''Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: '''(yes/No)
+
'''Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: '''No
 
<br/><br/>
 
<br/><br/>
  
Line 139: Line 132:
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
−
<!--
+
 
−
#Visitors:
+
#Visitors:none
−
#Agenda:
+
#Agenda: John suggests we address what we can without voting.
−
#Minutes approved by general consent
+
#Request: A couple of DESD work groups are asking for guidelines to help them determine when a project should be considered Universal. They would like to see TSC guidance on this. Reported by Austin.
−
#CEO
+
#*How are local realm projects treated differently than universal realm in our processes? Woody thinks we expect active participation from more than one realm if it's universal. Should have an assertive intent to meet multi-affiliate requirements and participation from at least two HL7 organizations. 
 +
#*Gregg asks, if it's a DSTU, do you need implementers from multiple realms?  Woody thought that though it would be desirable, it might present a difficult burden and should not be a requirement. 
 +
#*Austin asks how formal is the recommendation?  Do you need at least two affiliates signed on, or a company like Siemens which is international in scope, does that count?  Woody notes the avowed intent is as important as the body count. Someone whose primary participation is through an affiliate should be present on the project team.  It needs a stated intent to meet as many international requirements as possible.
 +
#*Austin recaps the TSC guidance that a minimum of two realms should be represented in the stakeholders, that are contributing requirements as well as participation.
 +
#*Austin notes that the question came from an Emergency Medical Services project, (EMS-DMIM) that had been in negotiations with Dutch participation and without their participation changed the project to be U.S. Realm. Like many other times, they set it as universal realm and wait until someone calls attention to it.
 +
#*Gregg notes that in the past when project statements have come through with a specific realm  identified, we have asked why they couldn't be made international.
 +
#*Two comments Austin noted on the quality plan he received from international affiliates regarded standards being released that indicated they were universal realm but in fact were not.
 +
#*Woody cites Lloyd's idea that if you are bound to a code system that is not universal you are becoming realm-specific.  Binding to a code system would have to be done after the universal spec is identified.
 +
#*Austin notes that he'll put together a draft statement and circulate it to the list. ACTION ITEM: Austin will send something to the list.
 
#CTO
 
#CTO
 
#ArB
 
#ArB

Revision as of 15:32, 19 July 2010

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 124466#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2010-07-19
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator John Quinn Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
regrets Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
? Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
regrets Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
regrets Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
? Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
regrets Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
regrets Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
? D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair



Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: No

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
  3. Approve Minutes from 2010-07-12_TSC_Call_Agenda
  4. Review action items –
    • #1602 - Ken: Review draft description of TSC nomination committee composition
    • 1583 Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Communication Plan Project - scope statement - Ravi Natarajan
      • Circulated the project scope and back to the TSC again for final approval
      • Ravi will approach the Marketing Council to participate.
    • 1574 Develop Quality Plan project scope statement, see also TSC 3-yr plan project at Project Insight #647, TSC Tracker # 1364 - Draft Product Quality Scope Statement - Austin Kreisler
      • Austin reports 'I haven't made any progress this week on updating QUality Plan Project Scope Statement' with the suggestions received.
    • #1582 - Ed: Draft Project Scope Statement for TSC Innovations Project
    • #1581 - Woody: Draft Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review project
    • #1580 - Ken and John: Draft Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Plan
    • #1579 - Ken: Draft Project Scope Statement
    • #1576 - Lynn: Work with Project Services to draft Project Communications Plan
      • Status update: have reached out to Gerald Beucheld to get input offered at WGM. Awaiting response.
    • #1573 - John Quinn: Identify actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on Roadmap subcommittee recommendations.
    • #1573 - From 2010-05-03: John and Charlie Mead will work on a one sheet overview of SAIF vs NIEM, reviewed by ArB with the HL7 position.
    • #1539 - Ron to pull the elevator pitch out for TSC review.
  5. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  6. CTO Report - John Quinn
  7. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  8. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan/ Charlie McCay
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  10. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
  11. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
  12. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
  13. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  14. WGM Planning -
    • Marketing and promotion - update from HQ -
    • TSC preparations - Lynn Laakso
    • Working Group preparations - agendas
  15. Discussion Topics:
    • The candidates still stand as outlined below:
      • Domain Experts: 1 nominee, having difficulty getting a second.
      • Foundation and Technology: Have 3 nominees.
      • Structured and Semantic Design: 1 nominee and potentially another.
      • Technical and Support Services: 1 nominee and potentially another.
      • International Affiliates: Have 2 nominees
    • Open Issues List


Supporting Documents

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Visitors:none
  2. Agenda: John suggests we address what we can without voting.
  3. Request: A couple of DESD work groups are asking for guidelines to help them determine when a project should be considered Universal. They would like to see TSC guidance on this. Reported by Austin.
    • How are local realm projects treated differently than universal realm in our processes? Woody thinks we expect active participation from more than one realm if it's universal. Should have an assertive intent to meet multi-affiliate requirements and participation from at least two HL7 organizations.
    • Gregg asks, if it's a DSTU, do you need implementers from multiple realms? Woody thought that though it would be desirable, it might present a difficult burden and should not be a requirement.
    • Austin asks how formal is the recommendation? Do you need at least two affiliates signed on, or a company like Siemens which is international in scope, does that count? Woody notes the avowed intent is as important as the body count. Someone whose primary participation is through an affiliate should be present on the project team. It needs a stated intent to meet as many international requirements as possible.
    • Austin recaps the TSC guidance that a minimum of two realms should be represented in the stakeholders, that are contributing requirements as well as participation.
    • Austin notes that the question came from an Emergency Medical Services project, (EMS-DMIM) that had been in negotiations with Dutch participation and without their participation changed the project to be U.S. Realm. Like many other times, they set it as universal realm and wait until someone calls attention to it.
    • Gregg notes that in the past when project statements have come through with a specific realm identified, we have asked why they couldn't be made international.
    • Two comments Austin noted on the quality plan he received from international affiliates regarded standards being released that indicated they were universal realm but in fact were not.
    • Woody cites Lloyd's idea that if you are bound to a code system that is not universal you are becoming realm-specific. Binding to a code system would have to be done after the universal spec is identified.
    • Austin notes that he'll put together a draft statement and circulate it to the list. ACTION ITEM: Austin will send something to the list.
  4. CTO
  5. ArB
  6. Affiliates:
  7. DESD
  8. FTSD
  9. SSD SD
  10. T3SD
  11. Comments:
  12. WGM:
  13. Discussion
  14. Adjourned hh:mm am/pm (timezone).

-->

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-07-19_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=6728"