FTSD-F2F-20110516m

Fndn&Tech Steering Divn - Face-to-Face(date above)

Steering Division Members:

• Application Integration & Design (AID)
• Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
• Conformance & Guidance for Implementation/Testing(CGIT)
• Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
• Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
• Security
• Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
• Templates
• Vocabulary

Attendees

Facilitator	Note taker	Quorum
Woody Beeler	Tony Julian	???
Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)		Implementation/Conformance (InC)		Infrastructure and Messaging (InM)
.	Paul Knapp	.	Wendy Huang	.	Patrick Loyd
.	Dale Nelson	.	Frank Oemig	.	Tony Julian
.	Andy Stechishin	.	Melva Peters	.	Dave Shaver
		.	Rober Snelick	.	Sandy Stuart
Modeling & Methodology (MnM)		RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)		Security
.	Woody Beeler	.	Peter Hendler MD	.	Bernd Blobel PhD
.	Jean Duteau	.	Amnon Shabo PhD	.	John Moehrke
.	Lloyd McKenzie	.	Rene Spronk
.	Ravi Tatarajan
.	Ioan Singureanu
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)		Templates		Vocabulary
.	Don Jorgenson	.	Mark Shafarman	.	James Case
.	Ken Rubin	.	Douglas Baird	.	Heather Grain
.	Ann Wrightson			.	Russell Hamm
.	Galen Mulrooney			.	William Ted Klein
				.	Beverly Knight
				.	Rob Hausam
Guests
.	Lynn Laakso
.	.=Absent

Agenda

1. (05 min) Roll Call
2. (05 min) Approve Previous Minutes & Accept Agenda
3. (05 min) TSC nominations

1. How to have a better WGM Meeting
2. Project and Ballot Metrics from TSC
   (Laakso - 10 min plus QA) version from April 26, 2011
3. Brief review of FTSD "Work Group Health Metrics"
4. Publication Request Form - Being finalized in TSC. Applies to ALL Documents completing "ballot" process
5. IP Request on Ballot Site (for a while)
6. Approval of IC mission & charter (Huang, et. al.)Draft IC Mission and Charter
7. (5 min) Other Business

Action Item List

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ( not bottled)

Back to Meetings

Minutes

(05 min) Roll Call

1. Meeting Called to order at 7:07pm U.S. Eastern
2. Agenda approved (Tony/Sandy) 18-0-0
3. Approve Previous Minutes & Accept Agenda (Galen/Sandy) 18-0-0
4. TSC nominations Close june 13, vote for 30 days, for term to start 1/2011 through 12/31/2012 Candidate must be, or have been chair of a WG.
5. How to have a better WGM Meeting
   1. Steering Division meetings have not been seen to be productive.
   2. We did not re-visit at Sydney, but are reviewing now.
   3. Concern was raised in Cambridge that things were being rushed, because q6 monday is not the best time to take on issues. A motion was brought up, on the list, to set aside time during the day to deal with the issues. It would only require one member from each committee.
   4. Sometimes there are substantive, and possibly contentious items. There is an increasing problem in all of HL7 that there is not enough time. WSe seem to have more work now thatn we did 15 years ago. There is another group that had a similar problem, so the international now meets all day on Sunday due to the amount of work required. Normal substantive issues are not solved in a single quarter, often not in a single WGM. There may have to be a different structure, something larger, with more participation.
   5. Maybe we keep going, with some form of break-glass/Fail safe, for contentious issues, then we take to plan B.
   6. Every wgm assigns a chair to be available to attend the extra meeting.
   7. A candidate is thursday night - most have not left - it is an uncrowded night.
   8. How do we pre-determine a target quarter.
      1. Reserved lunch
      2. Early morning
   9. Every WG has multiple chairs.
   10. HL7 being volunteers, most have day jobs, it is easier to manage if chairs have certain responsibilities.
   11. Not having chairs at a WG meeting, will impact the WG work.
   12. Not a standing meeting, - does not replace this meeting.
   13. Concern is that we are being reactive in activities. There are things happening about which we need to be pro-active, e.g. SAIF refactoring. If we allocate a quarter, know going in, work through proactive issues, and give proper attention.
   14. question - is there enough work that needs to be on our agenda that we should meet regularly.
   15. Conference calls have shown no agenda items with immediate need. There have been no communications
   16. What are the mechanics to getting on the agenda?
   17. Part of the problem is the shrinking of the TSC, which moved the business. The TSC meeting agenda items are glossed over at the Co-Chair meeting. The communication between the TSC and the co-chairs at large is missing things.
   18. Recent example: Austin joined SOA call about the SAIF artifact definition. Each of us is feeling a piece of the elephant.
   19. SAIF should not have been a surprise.
   20. People dont do a lot of homework -
   21. Given that this is an exploration, how are other work groups participating?
   22. This group will not help that problem.
   23. This group will help SOA understand how they should spend their resources. If I know xx is working on an issue that is important to his committee, I can back off. I thought we were to form a collective point of view, and there is no other time.
   24. The question is whether anything involving two committees should go throught the Steering Division.
   25. The entire TSC would sit around the table, but it got too big. T3F was to make it workable. We could have temporary work groups, created for a project. I would be happy if this group had more time, and other activities could be created here.
   26. If we cant get the requirements on the table in advance we can discuss.
   27. There exists a quarter (? wednesday q4) currently touching on SAIF issues.
   28. It is a TSC meeting SAIF focused.
   29. The average attendee is also often hit cold. Maybe an all-hands meeting would be a good idea.
   30. Loose a quarters for all?
   31. Wednesday afternoon was open, but primarily SAIF focused.
   32. We have several forums and processes, for WG's to work together. Steering Division is one of them. Do we have mission/charter, and understanding among chairs, what subset of that stuff should be addressed by this group, at whatever forum?
   33. Tony will accept all of the agenda requests via e-mail.
   34. How many read the wiki for the minutes and agenda for the issues? The TSC newsletter goes out, and contains the information. Is there a problem where it is not by voice and face?
   35. Merely posting a notice, or minutes appear, no one reads them, unless they are pushed to you by e-mail. If the minutes are > 2 pages, people will not read them - they will scan the executive summary. How much is too much fatigue?
   36. We have shifted our calls to have a last 10 minutes of the call for Steering Division, Arb, MnM updates. I am seeking here the extended trust model - you know the issues, and what is in the minutes.
   37. We try to put out the hot topics
   38. I dont want to hear about the 10 topics on the TSC - I want to here the ones that have meat - and do we have a committee have a point of view.
   39. We have good participation in the Steering Division, and the topics are diseminated to the WG's.
   40. I would like to hear the items from the TSC sent out.
   41. This has been done.
   42. The TSC newsletter has mostly the approved scopes statements.
   43. Example the Metrics
   44. This was sprung on us(FTSD Chairs) by the TSC on Saturday. We are communicating tonight.
   45. It is increasingly difficult for people to dedicate the time for the processes/protocols. Can we do it more efficiently.
   46. Maybe I should tweet from the TSC.
   47. Maybe that would work.
   48. Not everything - just the things I need to know.
   49. There is the notion on the table reserving the right to call a one-quarter meeting as late as the FTSD Monday meeting. I thought the SAIF project was socialized - people dont open the door enough.
   50. The last call - there was lack of clarity of the role of WG representatives - do they do the work, or does the committee.
   51. SOA has four co-chairs, only one in the US - others cannot make the call.
   52. Example of something pertinent
   53. Pertinent because people gave up there time.
   54. It is people, not work groups.
   55. This is a case as a committee chair, participating in committee work, I am now asking this body, my peers who will be affected about this work, how to engage in the activity.
   56. Asking better engagement, trying to solve by process, which will not replace expertise and dedication. Our fundamental problem is that we are doing stuff more complicated than that in our day jobs. We get less participation than the job requires.
   57. I am trying to make us work smarter, not harder.
   58. The notion is a good one - Tony and I cannot generate the agendas based upon what people want to know.
   59. The stuff is voluminous. All of the information is there. There is too much information, to figure out what we should know - but none of us have the time to do that. We can redesign the structures, how can we use them, since WGM's are densly booked, to solve a perceived problem.
   60. My problem is different than his
   61. There is no exact solution to the problem. Everyon int eh room is a smart person, and there should be some way to lead to the solution.
   62. The principle issue has been around SAIF. Go to the WIKI/Web site - It is difficult for TSC to choose who should be involved. Lets retain as a topic, and formalize for the next conference call

1. Project and Ballot Metrics from TSC (Laakso - 10 min plus QA) version from April 26, 2011
   1. Go on the wiki to your workgroup, there is a reports link.
      1. There is a representation of the ballot status, by categories.
      2. There is a link for non-advancing ballots - have not produced a final, and are behind on topic.
      3. They are generated by the ballot status and project insight.
   2. We did not see this until saturday.
2. Brief review of FTSD "Work Group Health Metrics"
   1. The workgroups with a score of 0 will get a mention at the Tuesday morning session.
   2. Take up 'wrong' data with Lynn.
3. Publication Request Form - Being finalized in TSC. Applies to ALL Documents completing "ballot" process
   1. HQ produced a form to close the loop on balloted material, which requires a formal publication request.
   2. When we have finished the ballot, we will use the form to fill in this form, so that the TSC staff dont have to look it up,
   3. Should not take more than 5 minutes.

 We should publish the locations of these documents.

1. 1. Should be link on ballots page.
   2. It is on the reports page.
2. IP Request on Ballot Site (for a while)
   1. The IP request form that was on the site was improper.
   2. People should make there objections to HL7.
   3. The content will be discussed this week, and appear this summer.

Tony - send a copy of the IP statement.

1. Approval of IC mission & charter (Huang, et. al.)Draft IC Mission and Charter
   1. Changes WG name to Conformance and Guidance for Implementation and Testing (CGIT).
   2. We are not doing implementation directly, provide guidance.
   3. Corrections were made

MOTION to accept Wendy/Peter.  18-0-0

1. (5 min) Other Business
   1. Ted: Heads up - to be figured out - vocab is working on a scope statement with anatomic pathology, and not sure of how to push through two steering divisions.
   2. Send to both - and it will percolate up.
2. Announcement relative to SNOMED
   1. Is the beginning of an agreement that may allow HL7 to submit proposals, which was reserved to national bodies.
   2. Currently nations model concepts to put in SNOMED Core. HL7 is working to function as a nation.
   3. Kaiser does it, and we are not a nation. You are going to do anatomic pathology - the concept is being renewed by SNOMED
   4. We are working for binding to codes for picklists by cancer bodies.
   5. We are close to publishing concept identifier and name - ip license to display
   6. Could end up with HL7 namespace.

Motion to adjourn at 8:24pm U.S. Eastern A julian 00:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)