2013-07-15 TSC Call Minutes

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP

For those without access to microphone/speakers:

US: +1 (224)501-3318

Canada: +1 (647)497-9379

Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80

Access Code: 426-505-829

GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# GoToMeeting ID: 273-848-837		Date: 2013-07-15 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler		Note taker(s): Dave Hamill

Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented				yes/no
Chair/CTO		ArB		International Affiliate Rep		Ad-Hoc
X	Austin Kreisler		Ron Parker	.		.
X	John Quinn		Lorraine Constable	X	Jean Duteau
Domain Experts		Foundation and Technology		Structure and Semantic Design		Technical and Support Services
	Melva Peters	.	Woody Beeler	X	Calvin Beebe	X	Freida Hall
X	Mead Walker	X	Tony Julian	X	Pat van Dyke	X	Andy Stechishin
ex officio		Invited Guests		Observers		HL7 Staff
.	Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote	X	Joginder Madra	.	obs1	regrets	Lynn Laakso
.	Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote	X	John Roberts	.	obs2	X	Dave Hamill
.	Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote	X	Rick Haddorff	.		.
.		X	Brian Pech	.		.
.		.		.		.

Agenda

Housekeeping

1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
3. Approve Minutes of 2013-07-08 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

1. Discussion topics:
   • Potential TSC Organizational Structure
     • How would the TSC like to see SAIF AP move forward?

Management

1. Review action items –
2. Approval items: from in-committee approval last week:
   • Project Scope change to TSC Governance System for HL7 Business Architecture at Project Insight 890 and TSC Tracker 2672 . Doing so may result in the closure of Project 901 - Risk Assessment and Governance for HL7 Architecture Program
3. Discussion topics:
   • Suggestion: Have the TSC be the main sponsor and PHER be the co-sponsor of Project 1011 - IHE Ballot Pilot of IHE Healthy Weight Profile
4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
   • Review Ballot quality plans for ballot/reconciliation "mining"
   • TRAC report
5. Open Issues List

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• Approve the July 8, 2013 meeting minutes. Mead Walker abstained. Minutes approved.

Discussion topics: Suggestion: Have the TSC be the main sponsor and PHER be the co-sponsor of Project 1011 - IHE Ballot Pilot of IHE Healthy Weight Profile

• History:
  • HL7 has forged an agreement to ballot IHE content through the HL7 ballot process.
  • Comments would be handed off to IHE to resolve.
  • Beginning with Comment Only ballot; the plan would be to move to Informative, DSTU, Normative in the future.
  • PHER created the PSS; the start of an Out of Cycle Comment Only Ballot began before the PSS was approved in order to meet some IHE deadlines. This has created some pushback.
  • PHER co-chairs have joined the call.

• Joginder: Agreed that Austin’s summary of the history was correct. The current debate has somewhat moved away from the PSS and challenged the process being utilized
• Austin: It’s been suggested to shut down the project.
• Jean: Does this effort even need to have a PSS?
• Austin: He felt that the PSS was beneficial as a communication vehicle. The ballot process requires a project, but whom should sponsor those projects? Perhaps we need to forge out the actual process.
• Mead: Feels the project should move forward as it is, as it’s testing out the process.

• Austin: Because of the timing, there wasn’t time to create a well thought out process. Hence we’ve ended up where we are. We do have time to set up the framework going forward.

• Calvin: Even though it may not technically require a PSS, it seems like it is beneficial to the process to provide open transparency and communication. Since the project is a new process, that does seem to support the idea that the TSC should be the sponsor.

• Joginder: Given that this is a process, the TSC is a good candidate for the sponsor since it’s suggesting a new process. Work Group’s typically sponsor a project that is product centric.

• Austin: Would like to work with some PHER people and TSC people to revise the PSS then submit it through the normal process. Retract it from DESD as it’ll be led by the TSC. Joginder volunteered to be part of that team.

• John Roberts: PHER should remain as a co-sponsor since they are testing out a part of the process.

• Mead: The whole point of the project is to elevate concerns via the process being tested.

• Calvin: Perhaps part of the PSS is to identify all the concerns and risks. Calvin volunteered to help rewrite the PSS with Joginder. They will bring back the revised PSS to the TSC.

Potential TSC Organizational Structure

• Austin presented a straw man Organization Structure. The goal is to break down silos instead of creating them.. The diagram showed Governance Boards. Under those Governance Boards there are Product Management Groups (left hand side of the diagram).

The overarching Product Directorate handles situations that are ‘cross product’ – issues that between Product Families. There is a dotted line between the Product Directorate and the ArB.

• He noted that there are quite a few relationships between the right hand side of the diagram (Work Groups and Steering Divisiosn) and the left hand side but he has not detailed those out yet.

• Ron asked Austin to have this org structure go through a vitality process. This process includes Identify, Assess, Plan, Approve, Communicate

• Comments on the Diagram:
• Calvin: Liked the governance/product family/product management group.
• Should it be extended to include Domain content (Domain Models and ‘domain committees’)
• Austin could see Domain Models as a product family

• Mead: It does appear that we are adding another administrative hierarchy.

• Austin: There may be impacts to the existing Steering Division structure to support the Product Families organization.

• Next Steps: If others would like to see a different vision as this all evolves, now is the time to participate in that. Recurring discussions will be occurring over the coming months and at the Sept 2013 WGM.

• Interested parties with suggestions should submit their ideas/proposals/presentations in time to be discussed at the Sept 2013 WGM.

• How would the TSC like to see SAIF AP move forward?
• In the straw man, Austin grouped the Product Management Groups as the SAIF AP. This is because the current state of the SAIF AP is kind of like beating a dead horse. They are not making progress to implementing SAIF. So Austin suggests that the SAIF AP becomes a set of management groups.

• Approval items: from in-committee approval last week: Project Scope change to TSC Governance System for HL7 Business Architecture at Project Insight 890 and TSC Tracker 2672 . Doing so may result in the closure of Project 901 - Risk Assessment and Governance for HL7 Architecture Program
• MOTION to approve the project and close 901. Calvin Motioned. Tony seconded. No discussion. No oppositions. No abstentions. Motion approved unanimously.

• Adjourned 11:54 am Eastern Time

Please don't forget to hang up from the conference call (VOIP users)

Next Steps

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

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2013-07-22 TSC Call Agenda.

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.