2013-06-12 TRAC
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes
back to TRAC page
Meeting Info/Attendees
| TRAC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2013-06-12 Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso | |
| Quorum | n/a | ||||
| Chair/CTO | Members | Members | |||
| x | Pat Van Dyke | x | Rick Haddorff | regrets | Melva Peters |
| x | John Quinn | x | Austin Kreisler | . | |
Agenda
- Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
- Review minutes of 2013-06-05 TRAC
- Review the Risk assessment project changes for 890 and 901 for the TRAC role. (Rick)
- Melva review T3F red and yellow against existing risk items; if there isn't one then develop new risk items
- Build out process for setting governance points and metrics for critical/high e.g. RiskID 25
- Refer to spreadsheet
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
- Review minutes of 2013-06-05 TRAC Austin moves and Rick seconds approval. Unanimously approved.
- Review the Risk assessment project changes for 890 and 901 for the TRAC role. (Rick)
- Rick displays the changes.
- Austin recommends closing 901 and rolling the risk assessment process into 890.
- Discussion ensued on wording of the update to the PSS.
- Rick will send it out to the group, and after Melva reviews we can bring to the TSC for review.
- Melva review T3F red and yellow against existing risk items; if there isn't one then develop new risk items
- Build out process for setting governance points and metrics for critical/high e.g. RiskID 25
- Refer to spreadsheet
- See also http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6950/9638/GovernanceOverview--20120517.docx, Governance Point: identified risk where governance will be applied
- Risk: not engaging with negative balloters early in the process of draft stages.
- Calling out different levels of reconciliation at each ballot level. One mitigation strategy might be to change the GOM to have the same reconciliation rigor for all levels of balloting. Should we align the rules to practice, or align practice to the rules?
- DSTU permissive change rarely exercised without ballot and reconciliation rigor. Risk to regulation adhering to a particular release number. Opening ballot pools for normative ballots, clarifying rules for reconciliation, are examples of mitigations.
- Objective: reduce excessively rigorous reconciliation for DSTU and Informative ballots.
- Austin suggests we tap Ron for a "form" to develop and document governance points (GP) from a risk assessment that was developed for the FGB. ACTION ITEM: Invite Ron to next week's call or find a time to meet when he is available.
- Normative and non-normative distinction in governance points/precepts discussed, with relation to the possibility that processes become simplified 'across the board'. Pat recounts informative ballots in EHR have been reconciled with the rigor of normative as it would make the normative easier. Austin notes that informative ballots are an end point not requiring refresh or update.
- ACTION ITEM: Pat will put together what she's got from the discussion today and put it into bullets to review with Ron on the call.
- Pat suggests we look at another one, number 27. Quality indicators for the number of cycles to ballot are metrics used to monitor the mitigations for this risk. Connectathon program for CDA R2 IG product family might be very popular in the CCDA space. Austin reports that the membership committee has put connectathons on a back burner.
- For next week, review updated PSS with Melva, discuss GP development with Ron, or review Melva's assessment of the T3F review as attendees are available and time permits. Austin suggests the first 15 minutes timeboxed with Ron.
Adjourned 10:58 AM.
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
