Difference between revisions of "T3SD WGM-200809"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
(→Agenda) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
#''(5 min)'' '''Meeting Admin''' | #''(5 min)'' '''Meeting Admin''' | ||
## '''Roll Call''' | ## '''Roll Call''' | ||
| − | ## | + | ##* Helen Stevens Love, Ken McCaslin, June Rosploch, Abdul Malik Shakir, Freida Hall, Klaus Veil, Tim Ireland, Jim Leach, David Hamill, Wilfred Bonney, Patrick Loyd, Woody Beeler. |
| − | # ''' | + | # '''Cross Committee Ballot procedure''' - Does this belong to this SD |
| − | + | #* Discussion as to if this issue belongs in this SD? Consensus is that Yes because it is publishing. | |
| − | # | + | #* Discussion as to the priority of this item - is it really still an issue and what is the value of solving this (against other priorities)? This came up when ballots were delayed because secondary committee didn't get negative resolved etc. |
| − | # | + | #*Agreed to assign this to Publishing to investigate and bring back an evaluation of the problem. |
| − | # | + | #'''ArB Report''' |
| − | # | + | #* AMS Reporting: (refer to deck) – |
| − | # | + | #* Discussion started with "how does it fit with what we are currently doing?" - by 2nd meeting started looking at work of other groups, working on UML meta models for services, ROMDP as a framework for organizing artifacts. Started aligning current work products between services, messages and documents - but with different perspectives. Not focusing on the data, but the value being provided. Static information structures very consistent. Looked at lifecycle through using the HDF. By third meeting, focused on set of artifacts unique to services - fitting into framework and started applying idea of conformance and layers. |
| − | # | + | #*Some work (i.e. reference models) are at reference level; at analysis level we define constraints and apply conformance that can be tested. Next is design level - that in turn conform to those at the analysis model - last level is the implementation level that conform to the design level. Much of the framework focused on the kinds of artifacts that fitted into the different levels. |
| − | # | + | #* ArB has produced a 63 slide deck that will be distributed (with the document) for a peer review forum. Peer review will be in next couple of weeks. Peer review is just the first step of the review and application process. The document provides extensive background and information about the process that the ArB used as well as their deliberations and conclusions and recommendations. |
| − | # | + | #* Question: What is the strategy to bring 'key people' to the table to participate in the peer review and to engage in vetting this work? |
| − | # | + | #** The document (ArB) does not address this - but the TSC is looking into this and has incorporated an Out of Cycle meeting between now and December to get focused review on the document proposal. May schedule with the Harmonization meeting. |
| − | # | + | #* How/when do we 'socialize' this with the internal HL7 co-chairs and members? |
| − | * '''ACTION:''' Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are | + | #** January 2009 will have 2 quarter joint meeting (Wednesday PM) with identified foundational committees including OO, M&M, INM, Structured Documents, ArB and SOA to focus on the broader implications of this proposal. |
| − | * '''ACTION:''' Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week. | + | #* ArB actually asked the TSC if they wanted to just pursue this as a "service architecture" or as a "Unified Field Theory" that applies to Services, Documents and Messages (i.e. all HL7 products). TSC strongly supported the UFT approach. |
| − | * '''ACTION:''' AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do. | + | #* Concern expressed over the impact on resources already stretched by current processes and how they are going to be impacted by this (especially if extra/duplicate ballots are required). |
| − | # Committees statistics regarding Work being documented | + | #* Concern expressed over how "open" the ArB OOC meetings actually were because there was confused messaging about fullness of meeting, allowance of non-ArB members to speak and funding or partial funding to attendees. AMS made it clear that this was [[NOT]] the intent - but there was some poor/confused messaging about attendance at the meeting. |
| − | # | + | #* '''ACTION:''' Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are truly open to members. |
| − | # | + | #* '''ACTION:''' Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week. |
| − | # | + | #* '''ACTION:''' AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do. |
| − | # | + | # '''Committees statistics regarding Work being documented''' |
| − | # | + | #* Other Steering Divisions have created a worksheet to track 'activity' of a work group including a number of meetings, list activity, minutes posted, projects, conference calls etc. TSC wants to use this to track inactive working groups or working groups that are not documenting their work for the membership. TSC needs to assess the "health" of committees. |
| − | # | + | #* TSC Analyst will compile this information prior to the next WGM - so co-chairs should look at the health of their committees on these evaluation criteria. |
| − | # | + | #* Concern expressed that getting co-chairs using tools will then have the use of the tools to 'beat them up'... i.e. if conference call is cancelled and there are no minutes will show as negative... but not if call is not scheduled on the system. Need to have a way to streamline the processes and make it easier for the co-chairs. |
| − | # | + | #* Concern expressed that many of our committees are poorly attended and recognized, but are doing good work behind the scenes, so the measures that apply to 'domain' committees are not as appropriate for our committees. For example, Education has no minutes - but they do accomplish managing a complex education slate 6 times a year!!!! Publishing likewise gets out some great publications despite poor attendance at WGM sessions. |
| − | # | + | #* Need to implement a 'triage' system to identify committees that are having problems and then investigate them directly |
| − | # Schedule | + | #* It was noted that the lack of available minutes does materially affect the productivity of committees and ability to attract and inform potential participants. |
| − | ## Proposal on Date: | + | #* Proposal by ESC to expand the "Minutes" section of the committee website that will add an indicator of where the minutes are located if they are stored on the wiki with a link if possible. Ken took this as an action for the ESC – it had already been requested by TSC. |
| − | # | + | # '''WIKI Usage Statement''' |
| − | # | + | #* TSC Action 232: TSC requested that a policy be developed to describe the appropriate use of the WIKI – ESC will take this on and report back to SD. |
| − | # Develop SD Roadmap consistent with TSC Roadmap | + | # '''Call Schedule''' |
| − | # Develop SD Strategy | + | #* Some members are having trouble with managing the calls at the current time and there is often confusion over which week the call is on. |
| − | # Develop SD SWOT | + | #* Proposal on Date: Suggest that the meeting be every other week rather than twice a month on 2nd and 4th Thursday. |
| − | + | #* Proposal on Time: that the meeting should be moved to 11:30am ET | |
| − | + | #* Agreed to meet every 2 weeks starting Oct 2nd at 1pm EST. | |
| − | + | # '''Develop SD Roadmap consistent with TSC Roadmap''' | |
| + | #* Deferred to next meeting | ||
| + | # '''Develop SD Strategy''' | ||
| + | #* Deferred to next meeting | ||
| + | # '''Develop SD SWOT''' | ||
| + | #* Deferred to next meeting | ||
| + | # '''New Business''' | ||
| + | #* None | ||
=Attendees= | =Attendees= | ||
Latest revision as of 19:01, 2 October 2008
Logistics
- 2nd and 4th Thursday, at 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time:
- Click for GoToMeeting (ID:647-296-076) Support
- Use HL7 Conference Call service
- Phone Number: 770-657-9270
- Participant Passcode: 226122#
Agenda
- (5 min) Meeting Admin
- Roll Call
- Helen Stevens Love, Ken McCaslin, June Rosploch, Abdul Malik Shakir, Freida Hall, Klaus Veil, Tim Ireland, Jim Leach, David Hamill, Wilfred Bonney, Patrick Loyd, Woody Beeler.
- Roll Call
- Cross Committee Ballot procedure - Does this belong to this SD
- Discussion as to if this issue belongs in this SD? Consensus is that Yes because it is publishing.
- Discussion as to the priority of this item - is it really still an issue and what is the value of solving this (against other priorities)? This came up when ballots were delayed because secondary committee didn't get negative resolved etc.
- Agreed to assign this to Publishing to investigate and bring back an evaluation of the problem.
- ArB Report
- AMS Reporting: (refer to deck) –
- Discussion started with "how does it fit with what we are currently doing?" - by 2nd meeting started looking at work of other groups, working on UML meta models for services, ROMDP as a framework for organizing artifacts. Started aligning current work products between services, messages and documents - but with different perspectives. Not focusing on the data, but the value being provided. Static information structures very consistent. Looked at lifecycle through using the HDF. By third meeting, focused on set of artifacts unique to services - fitting into framework and started applying idea of conformance and layers.
- Some work (i.e. reference models) are at reference level; at analysis level we define constraints and apply conformance that can be tested. Next is design level - that in turn conform to those at the analysis model - last level is the implementation level that conform to the design level. Much of the framework focused on the kinds of artifacts that fitted into the different levels.
- ArB has produced a 63 slide deck that will be distributed (with the document) for a peer review forum. Peer review will be in next couple of weeks. Peer review is just the first step of the review and application process. The document provides extensive background and information about the process that the ArB used as well as their deliberations and conclusions and recommendations.
- Question: What is the strategy to bring 'key people' to the table to participate in the peer review and to engage in vetting this work?
- The document (ArB) does not address this - but the TSC is looking into this and has incorporated an Out of Cycle meeting between now and December to get focused review on the document proposal. May schedule with the Harmonization meeting.
- How/when do we 'socialize' this with the internal HL7 co-chairs and members?
- January 2009 will have 2 quarter joint meeting (Wednesday PM) with identified foundational committees including OO, M&M, INM, Structured Documents, ArB and SOA to focus on the broader implications of this proposal.
- ArB actually asked the TSC if they wanted to just pursue this as a "service architecture" or as a "Unified Field Theory" that applies to Services, Documents and Messages (i.e. all HL7 products). TSC strongly supported the UFT approach.
- Concern expressed over the impact on resources already stretched by current processes and how they are going to be impacted by this (especially if extra/duplicate ballots are required).
- Concern expressed over how "open" the ArB OOC meetings actually were because there was confused messaging about fullness of meeting, allowance of non-ArB members to speak and funding or partial funding to attendees. AMS made it clear that this was NOT the intent - but there was some poor/confused messaging about attendance at the meeting.
- ACTION: Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are truly open to members.
- ACTION: Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week.
- ACTION: AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do.
- Committees statistics regarding Work being documented
- Other Steering Divisions have created a worksheet to track 'activity' of a work group including a number of meetings, list activity, minutes posted, projects, conference calls etc. TSC wants to use this to track inactive working groups or working groups that are not documenting their work for the membership. TSC needs to assess the "health" of committees.
- TSC Analyst will compile this information prior to the next WGM - so co-chairs should look at the health of their committees on these evaluation criteria.
- Concern expressed that getting co-chairs using tools will then have the use of the tools to 'beat them up'... i.e. if conference call is cancelled and there are no minutes will show as negative... but not if call is not scheduled on the system. Need to have a way to streamline the processes and make it easier for the co-chairs.
- Concern expressed that many of our committees are poorly attended and recognized, but are doing good work behind the scenes, so the measures that apply to 'domain' committees are not as appropriate for our committees. For example, Education has no minutes - but they do accomplish managing a complex education slate 6 times a year!!!! Publishing likewise gets out some great publications despite poor attendance at WGM sessions.
- Need to implement a 'triage' system to identify committees that are having problems and then investigate them directly
- It was noted that the lack of available minutes does materially affect the productivity of committees and ability to attract and inform potential participants.
- Proposal by ESC to expand the "Minutes" section of the committee website that will add an indicator of where the minutes are located if they are stored on the wiki with a link if possible. Ken took this as an action for the ESC – it had already been requested by TSC.
- WIKI Usage Statement
- TSC Action 232: TSC requested that a policy be developed to describe the appropriate use of the WIKI – ESC will take this on and report back to SD.
- Call Schedule
- Some members are having trouble with managing the calls at the current time and there is often confusion over which week the call is on.
- Proposal on Date: Suggest that the meeting be every other week rather than twice a month on 2nd and 4th Thursday.
- Proposal on Time: that the meeting should be moved to 11:30am ET
- Agreed to meet every 2 weeks starting Oct 2nd at 1pm EST.
- Develop SD Roadmap consistent with TSC Roadmap
- Deferred to next meeting
- Develop SD Strategy
- Deferred to next meeting
- Develop SD SWOT
- Deferred to next meeting
- New Business
- None
Attendees
- TBD
