Difference between revisions of "Concall-20080218"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
m (→Agenda) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
#'''''(5 min)'' Meeting Admin''' | #'''''(5 min)'' Meeting Admin''' | ||
##Roll Call - the following individuals participated on the call: Charlie McCay, John Quinn, Ioana Singureanu, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Chuck Meyer, Karen Van Hentenryck. Quroum was not achieved and thus no binding decisions were made. | ##Roll Call - the following individuals participated on the call: Charlie McCay, John Quinn, Ioana Singureanu, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Chuck Meyer, Karen Van Hentenryck. Quroum was not achieved and thus no binding decisions were made. | ||
| − | ##Approve Agenda- In the absence of quorum, Beeler suggested that the group discuss how issues are coming to the TSC. Issue appear to be coming to the TSC because someone perceives them as a priority. The project template is a good example. People have indicated that the template doesn’t support our current ballot cycle and yet it it appears on the agenda. Additionally, groups that have submitted their project scope statements shouldn’t have to complete them again. Singureanu indicated that the project scope statement has been updated. Beeler believe the project services work group and the steering division should approve the template before it comes to the TSC for approval. Singureanu noted that the processes for submitting projects are available on the January 2008 ballot cycle ballot site (in the HDF). We will add this to the agenda for a future call. | + | ##Approve Agenda- In the absence of quorum, Beeler suggested that the group discuss how issues are coming to the TSC. Issue appear to be coming to the TSC because someone perceives them as a priority. The project template is a good example. People have indicated that the template doesn’t support our current ballot cycle and yet it it appears on the agenda. Additionally, groups that have submitted their project scope statements shouldn’t have to complete them again. Singureanu indicated that the project scope statement has been updated. Beeler believe the project services work group and the steering division should approve the template before it comes to the TSC for approval. Singureanu noted that the processes for submitting projects are available on the January 2008 ballot cycle ballot site (in the HDF). We will add this to the agenda for a future call. Is it useful to take the relevant sections of the HDF and ask the TSC to approve them. Or, should the project services committee and Technical Services Steering Division review them first and come forward to the TSC with a recommendation? Beeler would like current project lifecycle and approval process to be documented by project services and act on those as a package coming from project services and up through the steering division. If further action is required, the TSC can get involved. Singureanu noted that these items have already been approved and documented in HDF. Project Services is trying to deal with infrastructure projects that may not require implementers. Beeler noted that the process is not obvious, likely because much of it was approved as we were transition from the T3F to the TSC. Where do we expect discussion to happen? These processes, if they govern the organization, should be determined within the processes of the work group/SD/TSC/Board. There is a need for clarity around and boundaries for what stays in HDF and what is culled out to be part of this process. |
| − | |||
| − | Is it useful to take the relevant sections of the HDF and ask the TSC to approve them. Or, should the project services committee and Technical Services Steering Division review them first and come forward to the TSC with a recommendation? Beeler would like current project lifecycle and approval process to be documented by project services and act on those as a package coming from project services and up through the steering division. If further action is required, the TSC can get involved. Singureanu noted that these items have already been approved and documented in HDF. Project Services is trying to deal with infrastructure projects that may not require implementers. Beeler noted that the process is not obvious, likely because much of it was approved as we were transition from the T3F to the TSC. | ||
| − | |||
| − | Where do we expect discussion to happen? These processes, if they govern the organization, should be determined within the processes of the work group/SD/TSC/Board. There is a need for clarity around and boundaries for what stays in HDF and what is culled out to be part of this process. | ||
## CTO Report -Quinn reported that none of the three ISO projects are ready for approval at the TSC level. He assumes the steering divisions will bring the ISO projects forward for approval | ## CTO Report -Quinn reported that none of the three ISO projects are ready for approval at the TSC level. He assumes the steering divisions will bring the ISO projects forward for approval | ||
##Other discussion - McCay noted that lack of quorum on today's call is troubling. TSC members are requested to report to the listserv on the Friday prior to the meeting if they are unable to participate in the upcoming call. The next call convenes on Feb 25, which is the week of HIMSS but prior to the opening of the exhibit hall. It was therefore agreed that the call will continue as scheduled. | ##Other discussion - McCay noted that lack of quorum on today's call is troubling. TSC members are requested to report to the listserv on the Friday prior to the meeting if they are unable to participate in the upcoming call. The next call convenes on Feb 25, which is the week of HIMSS but prior to the opening of the exhibit hall. It was therefore agreed that the call will continue as scheduled. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:53, 20 February 2008
TSC - Technical Steering Committee
Monday, February 18th, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5) To participate, dial 702-894-2444 and enter pass code 1244667# GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174 GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
Contents
Attendance
Expected
- CTO: John Quinn
- Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
- Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
- Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
- Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
- Affiliate: Frank Oemig,
- ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
- HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck
invited
- Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair)
Apologies
- Ken McCaslin
Agenda
- (5 min) Meeting Admin
- Roll Call - the following individuals participated on the call: Charlie McCay, John Quinn, Ioana Singureanu, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Chuck Meyer, Karen Van Hentenryck. Quroum was not achieved and thus no binding decisions were made.
- Approve Agenda- In the absence of quorum, Beeler suggested that the group discuss how issues are coming to the TSC. Issue appear to be coming to the TSC because someone perceives them as a priority. The project template is a good example. People have indicated that the template doesn’t support our current ballot cycle and yet it it appears on the agenda. Additionally, groups that have submitted their project scope statements shouldn’t have to complete them again. Singureanu indicated that the project scope statement has been updated. Beeler believe the project services work group and the steering division should approve the template before it comes to the TSC for approval. Singureanu noted that the processes for submitting projects are available on the January 2008 ballot cycle ballot site (in the HDF). We will add this to the agenda for a future call. Is it useful to take the relevant sections of the HDF and ask the TSC to approve them. Or, should the project services committee and Technical Services Steering Division review them first and come forward to the TSC with a recommendation? Beeler would like current project lifecycle and approval process to be documented by project services and act on those as a package coming from project services and up through the steering division. If further action is required, the TSC can get involved. Singureanu noted that these items have already been approved and documented in HDF. Project Services is trying to deal with infrastructure projects that may not require implementers. Beeler noted that the process is not obvious, likely because much of it was approved as we were transition from the T3F to the TSC. Where do we expect discussion to happen? These processes, if they govern the organization, should be determined within the processes of the work group/SD/TSC/Board. There is a need for clarity around and boundaries for what stays in HDF and what is culled out to be part of this process.
- CTO Report -Quinn reported that none of the three ISO projects are ready for approval at the TSC level. He assumes the steering divisions will bring the ISO projects forward for approval
- Other discussion - McCay noted that lack of quorum on today's call is troubling. TSC members are requested to report to the listserv on the Friday prior to the meeting if they are unable to participate in the upcoming call. The next call convenes on Feb 25, which is the week of HIMSS but prior to the opening of the exhibit hall. It was therefore agreed that the call will continue as scheduled.
Call adjourned at 11:43 pm
Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)
- Approval of project scope statement template
- Approval of Security and Terminology project scope statement (after determining from work group whether this is realm specific)
- Review HITSP projects
- Review ISO/CEN/HL7 joint projects
- Review draft document outlining work group collaboration
- REview draft document outlining processes for bringing JIC projects into HL7
