Difference between revisions of "2010-09-27 TSC Call Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(minutes)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 16:44, 27 September 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: 2010-09-27
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie McCay Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso


Attendee Name Affiliation
regrets Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
? Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
regrets Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Rick Haddorff Project Services co-chair
x Patrick Loyd invited guest, T3SD co-chair-elect
x Tony Julian invited guest, FTSD co-chair-elect


Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
  3. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
    • Ravi unable to attend in Cambridge. Would you prefer to have some one nominated for my absence to cover the TSC Meetings.
  4. Approve Minutes of 2010-09-20_TSC_Call_Minutes
  5. Review action items – none this week.
  6. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  7. CTO Report - John Quinn
  8. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  10. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
    • follow up on TSC Tracker # 1513, HL7 Security Considerations - Cookbook. What is its status?
  11. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
    • Calvin reports: No items from SDWG this week... On the bright side, I finished up this weekend a presentation on SAEAF Governance for the TSC meeting on Saturday.
  12. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
  13. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  14. WGM Planning -
  15. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  16. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Project
        • Motion: Approve Project
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects: Austin to draft paragraph
        • The following are a set of guidelines drafted by the TSC for the purpose of providing guidance to work groups as they decide whether or not a proposed project should be considered a universal realm project or a realm specific project. Projects meeting one or more of these guidelines are certainly candidates for being universal realm projects.
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum, where stakeholder should be interpreted as a specific group or organization listed in the External Project Collaboration section or the Stakeholders / Vendors / Providers section of the project scope statement
          • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
        • In the future, the project scope statement template may be updated to allow this realm representation clearer. In the interim, work groups are encouraged to document in the scope statement:
          • What realms an group or organization is representing
          • What realms project team members represent
          • What realms a project will be implemented in
          • What realms requirements are being drawn from
        • It should be noted that other considerations outside these guidelines may dictate that a project should be universal. For instance any project developing a normative base standard such as CDA R3 or the Composite order should probably be a universal realm project. Such projects should strive to meet the above guidelines but may not be able to for a variety of reasons. In the circumstance where a sponsoring work group believes a project should be universal but doesn't meet the above guidelines, the project can still be put forward as universal, but the sponsoring work groups should clearly indicate in the project scope statement that additional realm participation is needed in the project. The project approval process may surface additional realms wishing to participate.
      • #1590 - TSC Review of Project Approval Process
        • The TSC needs only to review Affiliate-sponsored projects which contain affiliate-specific deliverables and not any technical deliverables. Previously, the process had the TSC approving these types of projects.
        • During their review, the International Council should assess whether any project deliverables are technical in nature. If any are deemed technical, the Project Facilitator shall return to Step 1 of the Project Approval Process and follow the TSC Work Group Project Approval Process.
      • #1640 Definition of substantiveness and update of guidance documents - clarify responsibility belonging to ArB and request update?
    • Work Group Health review; follow up activities?


Supporting Documents

  1. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/5869/7573/CTOReporttoHL7BoardOct2010v1.0.ppt
  2. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1625/7569/2010-09-23HL7ProjectScopeStatement-SAIFandSoundFinal.doc
  3. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/5865/7570/TSCPMBoardReport2010Sep.doc
  4. http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=WGM_information agendas
  5. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1636/7525/HL7USReadinessPSSv0r2.doc
  6. http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1590/7562/ProjectApprovalProcess_v2010_20100922_All_Processes.zip



Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Rick Haddorff, for SAIF and Sound; Tony and Patrick, cochair elects
  2. Agenda review and approval – approved by general consent
    • Motion: to approve Project Scope Statement for SAIF and Sound - Fast Track to Standard Development. See TSC Tracker # 1625, or Project Insight #676
      • Rick briefly reviewed the changes in the project scope. Mead noted this project would need close association with the ArB. He would suggest that someone from the ArB be a member of the project team. Ron Parker agrees, though he cannot volunteer to commit time to the project. Ron notes the ArB will find a volunteer – Ken reports that they approached John Koisch and Ron agreed he’d be perfect. Ravi asks if this would impact tooling; Ken felt it would not impact tooling. Ron notes that there will be some degree of convergence but for this project there is a declared assumption there is no impact on tooling. Bob asks about steps in the process to figure out steps in the process needed for different paradigms i.e. messages, services or documents. Rick notes the project is open ended in terms of the white paper. Ron notes the interactions of the artifacts are not yet known fully yet.
      • VOTE: unanimously approved
  3. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
    • Ravi unable to attend in Cambridge. Would you prefer to have some one nominated for my absence to cover the TSC Meetings.
      • Travel restrictions prohibit his attendance. Ken asks if Jay can fill in, as Affiliate representative-elect? The International Council would have to approve it, but they don’t meet until Sunday. Helen could get the Chairs of the IC to approve it. Helen notes that Jay doesn’t have the background with the TSC activities of late to provide effective voting on Saturday. Austin notes that Charlie McCay would be able to cast an Affiliate vote if John were chairing. Charlie asks Helen to check with the IC chairs on their ability to conduct such a process.
  4. Approve Minutes of 2010-09-20_TSC_Call_Minutes
    • VOTE: Minutes approved (7/0/1) Ravi abstains.
  5. Review action items – none this week.
  6. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
    • Bob had nothing to report.
  7. CTO Report - John Quinn
    • CTO Report to the Board for Cambridge meeting
      • Report on tooling leveraging OHT plans to develop shared artifact repository. Bob comments on whether there is sufficient bandwidth to complete IHTSDO workbench to accommodate SNOMED and other tables. John did not know if IHTSDO would be attending OHT board meeting on Friday to learn how to get others involved. Ken notes that the flow on slide 5 is complicated; John asks to send him email with comments on the slide show.
  8. ArB Report –Ron Parker
    • Working actively to prep for Cambridge, on peer review commentary and BF. Continued work on Sunday in Cambridge. Working with other groups through the week on different implementations of SAIF and ownership aspects of parts of the work. Will be following through on SAIF and Sound, as well as Impl/Conf on ECCF. John Koisch working on BF meta-model with dynamic model. Hoping to learn from practical applications. Wednesday Q4 previously oriented around alpha projects but need to revisit.
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
    • Austin noted nothing to report.
  10. Ravi leaves the call.
  11. Foundation & Technology Report–Mead Walker
    • follow up on TSC Tracker # 1513, HL7 Security Considerations - Cookbook. What is its status?
    • Mead noted he had nothing to report. He’ll have to follow up on Cookbook status.
  12. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
    • Calvin reports: No items from SDWG this week... On the bright side, I finished up this weekend a presentation on SAEAF Governance for the TSC meeting on Saturday.
    • Gregg notes no other items to bring to the call.
    • Bob asks Gregg if he knows status on Robert Worden’s project on CCR to CCD mapping – he does not.
  13. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
    • Nothing further
  14. WGM Planning -
    • Marketing and promotion - update from HQ - 492 registered as of 9/27
    • TSC preparations -
      • review 2010-10-02_TSC_WGM_Agenda for Saturday
        Please come prepared to discuss issues and statuses for projects. John notes chairing will require any questions raised needing more than yes or no answer needs to be taken offline.
      • review 2010-10-04_TSC_WGM_Agenda for Monday night co-chairs
        Helen notes the ORC does indeed want the 5 minutes allocated. Will be Scott Robertson presenting.
      • TSC Projects draft Report to the Board - comments?
    • Working Group preparations - agendas
  15. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  16. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Project
        • Motion: Approve Project
        • Gregg asks why Government Projects work group not involved? Their mission statement indicates they serve as a link between what’s going on in agencies and HL7. They should have a role in the project. Charlie would be happy to discuss with them, and bring back for approval on Tuesday during the WGM.
        • Mead asks about the bandwidth of the project team – will there be more participants recruited? Charlie would like very much to recruit additional team members. Mead will think about it. Charlie notes this project hopes to bring together within HL7 the activities that address that need to create an operational definition of MU.
        • Bob asks what the deliverables are; listed in the project scope.
        • Motion tabled to Tuesday Oct 5.
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects: Austin to draft paragraph
        • The following are a set of guidelines drafted by the TSC for the purpose of providing guidance to work groups as they decide whether or not a proposed project should be considered a universal realm project or a realm specific project. Projects meeting one or more of these guidelines are certainly candidates for being universal realm projects.
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum, where stakeholder should be interpreted as a specific group or organization listed in the External Project Collaboration section or the Stakeholders / Vendors / Providers section of the project scope statement
          • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
        • In the future, the project scope statement template may be updated to allow this realm representation clearer. In the interim, work groups are encouraged to document in the scope statement:
          • What realms an group or organization is representing
          • What realms project team members represent
          • What realms a project will be implemented in
          • What realms requirements are being drawn from
        • It should be noted that other considerations outside these guidelines may dictate that a project should be universal. For instance any project developing a normative base standard such as CDA R3 or the Composite order should probably be a universal realm project. Such projects should strive to meet the above guidelines but may not be able to for a variety of reasons. In the circumstance where a sponsoring work group believes a project should be universal but doesn't meet the above guidelines, the project can still be put forward as universal, but the sponsoring work groups should clearly indicate in the project scope statement that additional realm participation is needed in the project. The project approval process may surface additional realms wishing to participate.
        • Seeking formal endorsement. Would like to have this go to the instructions for the next release of the project scope. These guidelines are being discussed also by the International Council at the WGM and then will be handed over to PSC to incorporate into the PSS. Dave Hamill announces self and notes he has grabbed this information for inclusion in the PSS enhancement tracker.
        • Ken asks if we should socialize this with Working Group cochairs before moving it forward. Austin notes this is not criteria for evaluation but guidelines for a Work Group to use when determining their realm.
        • Charlie notes we should share it with cochairs as well as International Council. Further clarifying that this is guidance to the Work Groups but not decision criteria for the TSC to use for approving a project’s realm.
        • MOTION: Austin moves TSC endorse this and distribute for broader comment. Ken seconds.
        • VOTE: unanimously approved.
      • #1590 - TSC Review of Project Approval Process
        • The TSC needs only to review Affiliate-sponsored projects which contain affiliate-specific deliverables and not any technical deliverables. Previously, the process had the TSC approving these types of projects.
        • During their review, the International Council should assess whether any project deliverables are technical in nature. If any are deemed technical, the Project Facilitator shall return to Step 1 of the Project Approval Process and follow the TSC Work Group Project Approval Process.
        • International Affiliate representatives may choose to circulate projects to the larger HL7 International, but the International Council is not expected to address every Affiliate project. Dave will add a caveat that this is not a requirement but needed if a project is to be tracked in Project Insight.
        • Austin asks if we have a problem with interfering with the Affiliate relations in imposing a process. Helen notes that Affiliates are required to have a process; this process is not a default in the event that such a process does not exist.
        • MOTION: Ken moves to endorse; Austin seconds.
        • VOTE: unanimously approved.
      • #1640 Definition of substantiveness and update of guidance documents - clarify responsibility belonging to ArB and request update?
        current definition in back of ballot document created by old ARB; need to address who shall take ownership for update.
    • Work Group Health review; follow up activities?
      • Please take a look. Charlie looking to make the information most useful.
      • Helen notes in January the DMP updates will be tracked. Lynn will capture.


Adjourned 11:59 AM


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lynn to update Work Group Health to indicate in January the DMP updates will be tracked.
  • Distribute guidelines for Universal Realm for broader comment.
  • Charlie will discuss with Government Projects their participation on the Healthcare Readiness project.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-09-27_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=7018"