2017-04-03 TSC Call Agenda
Revision as of 21:35, 4 April 2017 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
TSC Agenda/Minutes
Meeting Info/Attendees
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: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829 |
Date: 2017-04-03 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented | yes/no | ||||||
| Chair/CTO | ArB | International Affiliate Rep | Ad-Hoc | ||||
| Regrets | Ken McCaslin | x | Tony Julian | . | Jean Duteau | . | Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus |
| x | Wayne Kubick | Regrets | Lorraine Constable | x | Giorgio Cangioli | x | Freida Hall, GOM Expert |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| Domain Experts | Foundation and Technology | Structure and Semantic Design | Technical and Support Services | ||||
| x | Melva Peters | . | Russ Hamm | x | Calvin Beebe | x | Andy Stechishin |
| x | John Roberts | x | Paul Knapp | x | Austin Kreisler | Regrets | Sandra Stuart |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| ex officio | Invited Guests | Observers | HL7 Staff | ||||
| . | Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote | . | . | obs1 | x | Anne Wizauer | |
| . | Chuck Jaffe (CEO) |
. | . | . | obs2 | x | Lynn Laakso
|
| . | . | . | . | . | |||
Agenda
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Agenda review and approval -
- Approve Minutes of 2017-03-27 TSC Call Agenda
- Review action items –
- Tony to consult the BAM regarding product types
- Wayne will talk to Stan about leveraging what the LDS does for other purposes, such as grooming people to assume other types of leadership roles
- Anne and Freida to clarify process for WG name change
- Paul to take back concerns regarding Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) to CIMI WG
- All to look at TSC structure draft and provide additional comments. Hoping to use Madrid to figure out next steps.
- Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 8/0/0 with Giorgio, DESD, ARB, SSD-SD, Freida, Jean, T3SD, and Wayne voting:
- Informative Publication Request by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Clinical Summary Relevant and Pertinent Data, Release 1 at Project Insight 1183 and TSC Tracker 13142
- Approval items for this week:
- STU Publication Request by the ITS WG of the FTSD for HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: FHIRPath at Project Insight 1237 and TSC Tracker 13165
- Project Approval Request by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Virtual C-CDA Implementation-A-Thon (IAT) at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 13164
- Normative Publication Request by the CQI WG of the DESD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Representation of the Health Quality Measures Format (eMeasure) at Project Insight 508 and TSC Tracker 13163
- Proposed Definition of Interest Group at TSC Tracker 12980
- Discussion topics:
- FHIR Ballot Level Issues - Paul
- FHIR publication naming - Wayne
- Evaluating STU publication time periods - Wayne
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
- HL7 Standards Master Grid - Tony
- Publication Request Review Timelines
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publicaton request can be granted - Tony
- Recommendation from SGB regarding process changes which affect standards development - Paul
- Open Issues List/Parking Lot
Minutes
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- No visitors
- Agenda review and approval -
- Approved via general consent
- Approve Minutes of 2017-03-27 TSC Call Agenda
- Minutes approved via general consent
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Review action items –
- Tony to consult the BAM regarding product types
- BAM does not specifically call out product types; it says what a product type is. Haven't gotten as far as doing the product inventory. Wayne notes the GOM calls out a limited version of product types.
- Wayne will talk to Stan about leveraging what the LDS does for other purposes, such as grooming people to assume other types of leadership roles
- Stan is open to LDS working on inviting future TSC members to participate. They will discuss further, but generally supportive of the notion.
- Anne and Freida to clarify process for WG name change
- MOTION to accept: Calvin/Tony
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Anne to post/circulate
- Paul to take back concerns regarding Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) to CIMI WG
- Add for next week
- All to look at TSC structure draft and provide additional comments. Hoping to use Madrid to figure out next steps.
- Group views new slide. May still change titles of steering divisions. Paul: The dotted line doesn't make sense to me where it is because it makes it look like they hang off steering divisions. Wayne: That's still unclear whether they'll hang off SDs or TSC. Group agrees they should hang off TSC. Discussion over what interest groups can create - requirements, DAMs, requirements, white papers, and informative documents. Not implementable expressions. Group reviews Interest Group definition doc from 3/20 meeting. Balloted items should go through WG. Discussion over existing groups (Immunization, AID, open source, payers). Austin suggests they should not ballot at all. John agrees - they should contribute only. Calvin states that these aren't user groups, they're interest groups. Melva agrees that they should only contribute. Calvin: If we decide that, the statement over what they can produce must be amended. Freida: Could they not do peer reviews? Paul: They could do peer review, but we don't want to end up with an outcome being more authoritative than things coming out of WGs. Melva: Do we need to identify the WG or SD that they'd be associated to as they come in? As in, if they wanted to ballot something they would have to go through that WG or SD? Wayne: That would be solved by the PSS process - they would have to identify a WG to sponsor for publication. Austin: If they are creating projects, they belong in a steering division. Wayne: they come together, talk about ideas, and when they want to create something they start a project. Discussion over whether or not we're actually creating WGs under a different name. So who approves their projects? Either an existing steering division or a new Interest Group SD. Then WG Health is an issue. Group looks at Immunization user group and how they're operating. It is a use case within public health and they work closely with OO; PHER does the balloting. ARRA is where the user group is manifested but it meets in HL7's space. Discussion over whether or not AID would end up being an Interest Group. Open source tooling is more of a user group. Nurses and payers are user groups. Wayne: When they get to the point of standards development, they would need to choose a WG to sponsor, and the interest group would be an interested party who are providing requirements. May need a coordinating function needed above. Perhaps it is a staff function. Melva: Don't want them to get to the point of balloting and then they shop around the project. Calvin: If we have these groups not form requirements then we are directing them to become WGs without resources. Wayne: They would still need a mission and charter. Trying to make it less intimidating for people to come in to the organization/community. Paul: We need to scope what they're allowed to do so they don't wander into an area in which they don't have resources or knowledge. Melva: Perhaps we should be having this discussion in the context of the overall essentialism discussion. Group reviews structure slide again. Discussion over whether we need the dotted line.
- ACTION: Anne to add to definition of interest group back to e-vote for this week
- Group views new slide. May still change titles of steering divisions. Paul: The dotted line doesn't make sense to me where it is because it makes it look like they hang off steering divisions. Wayne: That's still unclear whether they'll hang off SDs or TSC. Group agrees they should hang off TSC. Discussion over what interest groups can create - requirements, DAMs, requirements, white papers, and informative documents. Not implementable expressions. Group reviews Interest Group definition doc from 3/20 meeting. Balloted items should go through WG. Discussion over existing groups (Immunization, AID, open source, payers). Austin suggests they should not ballot at all. John agrees - they should contribute only. Calvin states that these aren't user groups, they're interest groups. Melva agrees that they should only contribute. Calvin: If we decide that, the statement over what they can produce must be amended. Freida: Could they not do peer reviews? Paul: They could do peer review, but we don't want to end up with an outcome being more authoritative than things coming out of WGs. Melva: Do we need to identify the WG or SD that they'd be associated to as they come in? As in, if they wanted to ballot something they would have to go through that WG or SD? Wayne: That would be solved by the PSS process - they would have to identify a WG to sponsor for publication. Austin: If they are creating projects, they belong in a steering division. Wayne: they come together, talk about ideas, and when they want to create something they start a project. Discussion over whether or not we're actually creating WGs under a different name. So who approves their projects? Either an existing steering division or a new Interest Group SD. Then WG Health is an issue. Group looks at Immunization user group and how they're operating. It is a use case within public health and they work closely with OO; PHER does the balloting. ARRA is where the user group is manifested but it meets in HL7's space. Discussion over whether or not AID would end up being an Interest Group. Open source tooling is more of a user group. Nurses and payers are user groups. Wayne: When they get to the point of standards development, they would need to choose a WG to sponsor, and the interest group would be an interested party who are providing requirements. May need a coordinating function needed above. Perhaps it is a staff function. Melva: Don't want them to get to the point of balloting and then they shop around the project. Calvin: If we have these groups not form requirements then we are directing them to become WGs without resources. Wayne: They would still need a mission and charter. Trying to make it less intimidating for people to come in to the organization/community. Paul: We need to scope what they're allowed to do so they don't wander into an area in which they don't have resources or knowledge. Melva: Perhaps we should be having this discussion in the context of the overall essentialism discussion. Group reviews structure slide again. Discussion over whether we need the dotted line.
- Tony to consult the BAM regarding product types
- Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 8/0/0 with Giorgio, DESD, ARB, SSD-SD, Freida, Jean, T3SD, and Wayne voting:
- Informative Publication Request by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Clinical Summary Relevant and Pertinent Data, Release 1 at Project Insight 1183 and TSC Tracker 13142
- Discussion topics:
- FHIR Ballot Level Issues - Paul
- Add for next week
- FHIR publication naming - Wayne
- Add for next week
- Evaluating STU publication time periods - Wayne
- Add for next week
- SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
- Add for next week
- HL7 Standards Master Grid - Tony
- Reviewed Tony's slides and recommendations from ARB. Proposal to start a process with the questions what is the purpose of the grid and who is the audience? Will be sending in a PSS and asking for assistance. Lynn notes that HQ contracted with an outside marketing firm called Martopia and they came up with the design and publishing specifications that went into the grid - it is definitely time to review and update it.
- Publication Request Review Timelines
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publication request can be granted - Tony
- Add for next week
- MOTION to require a minimum 72-hour review period for all material before publication request can be granted - Tony
- Recommendation from SGB regarding process changes which affect standards development - Paul
- Add for next week
- FHIR Ballot Level Issues - Paul
- Open Issues List/Parking Lot
- SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
- Ken to address STU extensions at the co-chair dinner
- Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
