Meeting-20080913

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Saturday, September 13, 2008 9:00 AM (US Pacific Time)
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

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); Ed Tripp (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009); Ravi Natarajan (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009)

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following individuals were present: Charlie McCay, John Koisch, Jim Case, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Austin Kreisler, Ken McCaslin, John Quinn, Jane Curry, Chuck Meyer, Karen Van Hentenryck Calvin Beebe, Frank Oemig, Ed Hammond, Freida Hall, Dave Hamill (Q4).
   2. How well is the TSC functioning – Charlie McCay asked the TSC members for feedback on how they feel the TSC is functioning. He feels that the group been good with the reactive and day-to-day issues, but less effective with planning issues. He noted there is good attendance at conference calls but observed that not much work is being done via the listserv between calls. Several methods were discussed for increasing the effectiveness of the TSC. ACTION ITEM: The TSC members decided to do more routine voting online voting and use the calls for planning/strategic issues. The process will be worked out off-line.
   3. Agenda review:
      • Getting new TSC members up to speed - There were questions on how the new TSC members will be brought up to speed. Van Hentenryck noted that they were invited to join the TSC meetings in Vancouver. They will also be added to the TSC list and encouraged to participate in the weekly calls to be brought up to speed.
      • Laboratory Work Group – Austin Kreisler indicated that the Lab group is challenged and they are discussing what needs to be done. Co-chairs being laid off and/or re-directed and not able to do their work. The Work Group members are also unable to participate as needed. There is a dissolution of WG volunteers and this needs discussion.
      • Dissolution of volunteer resources - Singurenau would like a brief discussion regarding the possibility of WGs being supported by administrative staff.
2. Q1 – Review Issues Log
   • 319 – This is still an issue. We are about to violate our principles RE backwards compatibility. Will keep this as a TSC issue. Need task force to deal with this. ACTION ITEM: Quinn will lead the task force. Hot Topic scheduling for MnM will occur on Sunday,Q3. Quinn feels this should be resolved by next meeting. INM, MNM, ITS, pubs need to be involved in the solution. Identifry issues and potential solutions this week.
   • 321 – Keep as open. Will expire the item if not resolved by Jan 2009.
   • 322 – Ballot issue that is still open.
   • 323 – Jane Curry is working on tooling proposal. Implications will be considered when dealing with this. Once this is in place T3SD will develop some policy. This is WG collaboration type of tools, not RMIM designers. ACTION ITEM: Electronic Svcs will make a recommendation by January 2009 meeting. Now that wiki is HL7, the mandate to move things to web site. Once we have the proposal we can develop appropriate policies.
   • Closed
   • 329 – Close
   • 332 – This is still an open issue. HL7 completed work goes to ISO, This is outside JIC work. If work needs to be modified to be an international standard, then it needs to go to JIC. Hammond will provide the template. ACTION ITEM: Quinn will update the document that is available online and then we’ll close this item
   • 339 – Closed
   • 382 – Will close with PIC releases its generic updated DMPs
   • 383 - Close. INM has a task force dealing with this. whether fields length should be normative
   • 388 – Wilfred is working on updating Grorge. When that upgrade is completed, Wilfred will turn his attention to these changes
   • 400 – Closed and referred to Affiliate council
   • 401 – Closed. This is being dealt with by a Board task force. Another issue has bubbled up RE vocabulary. Currently there is no method for binding vocab. HITSP Foundation work group is thinking of becoming a WG and balloting these as informative docs. This is related to how US deals with its vocabulary.
   • 405 – Closed – HQ will create an DB similar to the V2 and CDA databases
   • 410 – This is being dealt with, short term, by the contract with Ted Klein and Russ Hamm. The chronic problem remains. Short term we may wish to have a contract with Ted/Russ to address this. Long term, this will be solved by the appropriate tooling. This will be rsolved when the chronic problem is addressed.
   • 457 – Still open and will be discussed in Q4
   • 586 - Need check box or text bxs on the project form
   • 587 – Still opened but should be closed when Don does this.
   • 588 – Still open
   • 589 – Wilfred will do this
   • 590 – Still open
   • 591 – Still open
   • 592 – Closed
   • 593 – Open
   • 596 – Still open. Beebe to make recommendation
   • 597 – Open
   • 611 – Closed.
3. Q2 – Roadmap Review - Hammond gave an overview/history on the Roadmap document. The Roadmap document was originally much longer. but over the course of several months, we’ve collapsed several issues into one. We now have a spreadsheet of tasks that can be sorted and will be tracked. Hammond noted that the tasks must be clear enough that the person responsible for the tasks understands what need to be accomplished and what the deliverable is. Staff has developed a process to track the tasks and vett and disposition the suggestions. Hammond noted that the EHR WG, for example, gave us great detail regarding what needs to be done. We collapsed many of those details into a single task on the Roadmap and pushed the details back to the WGs. Dates have been assigned to each task, and the TSC should look at the overall plan and to those tasks for which it has responsibility. Jaffe wanted the TSC to review the document first before it was opened up to the rest of the co-chairs. Hammond noted that we need TSC feedback on the dates and the details. Quinn estimated, from his perspective, the resources, (both time and $) required to accomplish the tasks. The TSC may WGs may have different estimates. Quinn also noted that the Roadmap tasks will be in competition with some of the other things that need to be done in the WGs or things they wish to do. Beeler suggested that the TSC scope its discussion so that the group doesn't get mired in the details. McCay feels that the TSC has until Sunday to confirm the dates in the Roadmap document and suggested that the group vote on the dates on Sunday evening. McCaslin is less interested in voting on dates as he is on agreeing on the tasks. Hammond noted that the intent was never to have the TSC vote on the dates or tasks, but to get their input on the document itself. McCay observed that the document was distributed to the TSC a couple of weeks ago, but not many TSC members commented on this document. This was not due to lack of interest but because they were asked to comment during a particularly busy time. General comments were as follows:
   • Kreisler noted that he doesn’t see the connection between the Roadmap and what 90% of the WGs are working on. Quinn and Hammond responded that putting into the Roadmap what all the WGs are doing was inappropriate. What we need to do is match the work of the WGs' three year plans with the Roadmap plan.
   • McCay feels that the Roadmap does not summarize what the organization is doing, but represents areas that need change. McCay would like to what the purpose of the Roadmap is--what will it be used for? If the purpose of the document is to communicate with outside stakeholders and inform them of the changes coming down the road, this is good. If the purpose of the doc is to inform the organization, it will not be particularly effective. #*Singureanu observed that the document is a mix of tactical and strategic tasks.
   • Beeler feels that you need to trace back to the five strategies as the details regarding the WG projects can be represented by the five strategies.
   • Kreisler feels that the purpose of the document must be clearly articulated as the co-chairs will have the same comments on the tasks that the TSC had.
   • Stevens Love noted that the task list is not a communications plan but the high level strategies are. ACTION ITEM: The strategies and task list documents will be updated to clearly articulate their intended use.
   • HL7 is moving into the intra organization space–that is the big shift and where V3 is going. From a marketing/communications perspective this is important. Strategy 4 represents a major shift in how WGs are presenting their work. Also, the strategy is represented such to imply that EHR and PHR are the same. ACTION ITEM: Correct PHR as it currently refers to personal health records and public health record. ACTION ITEM: TSC will draft a document that articulates what the Roadmap means to the TSC and WGs.
   • McCay feels that the Roadmap should summarize what the organization is going to be working on in the next three years.
   • Beeler feels that the TSC should ask if the WGs are doing things that support the strategies. If they are doing things that don’t support the strategies, the TSC may need to intervene.
   • Strategy 1 Comments
     • Beeler thinks technical architecture needs to be added
     • Stevens Love would like examples to be clearly identified as examples and ensure people know this is not a definitive list
     • Case didn’t see a strategy that looks at structure of organization and makes appropriate change (continuous process improvement). He suggested adding a sub bullet under this strategy to address this.
     • Stevens-Love feels strategy 1.4 belongs in strategy 4. Others felt this point was trying to address the technical architecture and if so belongs where it is.
     • Stevens Love suggested that we add the word “products” to the end of strategy 1
   • Strategy 2 Comments
     • Beeler would like strategy 2.4 to explicitly mention CEN
     • Strategies 2.3 and 2.4 should be worded simularly. The title should use the term SDO
     • McCay suggested that this strategy be explicit about US, international, and other other regions.
     • McCaslin questioned the strategy document that contains tactical elements and suggested that the the strategies focus on relationships and the task list focus on tactical elemets.
     • Stevens Loves suggested that this strategy speak to two distinct perspective, one is US and the other is International.
     • Oemig observed we have SDOs and other orgs. On intl basis and by affiliate basis. The by affiliate basis items should be listed elsewhere.
     • Beeler feels that international perspective be moved to item 3. He will add this comment via the comment site.
     • McCaslin is struggled with fact that we are making this US centric and thus he agrees with Woody’s comment.
   • Strategy 3 Comments
     • Beeler suggested that implementation tools may need to be mentioned in this strategy
   • Strategy 4 Comments– Have already talked about this strategy at length
   • Strategy 5 Comments
     • Beeler suggested broadening this strategy to include scientists in addition to clinicians.
4. Q3 – Tooling/ArB Work
   • Discussion on ArB work around enterprise architecture and SOA - John Koisch provided an updatem on this project based on the attached slide deck. A full report on the three jumpstart meetings and their outcome is available on the ArB wiki site. [1] The TSC asked the ARB to develop a Unified Field Theory and this is their answer to that request. We will set aside an hour on Sunday evening to discuss this further.
   • Update on tooling initiative/next steps - Jane Curry provided a report on the tooling initiative based on the attached slide deck [2]
5. Q4 – Project/Work Group Management
   • Work Group health metrics - McCay opened the discussion by indicating the need to get measurements on the health of projects; otherwise weare driving on imagination and help.

Singureanu asked how important is it to monitor progress of groups vs. projects? Stevens Love noted that the health of projects reflects the health of the group; an unhealthy group could report on projects that are healthy. Kreisler reviewed the the Domain Experts Work Group participation stats. ACTION ITEM: HQ to report back on number of conference calls scheduled AND ACTIVATED (i.e. used by the WG).DAVE HAMILL TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS MEANS ACTION ITEM: TSC Analyst also work on stats that Kreisler (and later Beebe) was reporting on (say, report on this info once per WGM cycle). Need to document the source of the figures as the group had a lot of questions of the source of the stats HQ published a month or so ago. This work will let the TSC show which Work Group has activity or doesn’t have activity occurring. DAVE HAMILL TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS MEANS. Case feels that the TSC should address the Work Groups whose stats indicate that they should be disbanded. Then address the Work Groups that don’t have projects. He raised a question as to whether active Work Groups (supported by the stats)that but have no projects should be folded into another work group. Beebe drafted a similar metrics chart for the Structure and Semantic Design Steering Division. The data indicates that some Work Groups that aren’t meeting much, and one of these Work Groups is considering disbanding or folding into another. Stevens-Love suggested that the Steering Division co-chair communicate to the Work Groups that the TSC will be compiling the statistics for each Work Group and publishling them to the entire membership. She further suggested a prize for the healthiest committee (this doesn’t mean the most active, perhaps a letter to their employer stating their accomplishment, a ribbon, announcement at WGM. ACTION ITEM: For the next cycle, the report will be based on the set of data used in Kreisler's report.

1. • SWOT / 3-Year Plans - Beeler suggested that the TSC Analyst review all the SWOTs to find common themes amongst them, especially the Threats and Opportunities and review the 3 year strategic plans. There was a vast difference in detail between WG 3-Year plans. The more detailed ones were less helpful. DAVE HAMILL TO CLARIFY IF THERE IS AN ACTION ITEM HERE. Hammond noted that we show visible evidence that the TSC/HL7 is doing something meaningful with

ACTION ITEM: Send cmail to the WG list<DAVE HAMILL-WHAT LIST IS THIS?> indicating the URL where the SWOT and 3-Year plan documents exist. The actual documents that contain the SWOT and 3-Year plan can reside in Gforge, Wiki, Work Group Web Site page. ACTION ITEM: McCaslin will follow up with Mike Kingery about making modifications to the Work Group site pages to indicate the location of Working Group’s meeting minutes, documents, etc. ACTION ITEM: SD Co-chairs should send a request to Wilfred Bonney to create a Gforge site for their Steering Division. ACTION ITEM: Have Mike Kingery create web sites for each Steering Division.

1. • HDF – Ioana Singureanu reported they did not take HDF to ballot but they’ve made several changes to the document. Updates have been posted on Gforge and several chapters will be ready for review next week. She is unsure of how this intersects with the ArB work. Quinn noted that what is eventually decided with respect to Tooling will affect what is in HDF. McCay was hoping that part of rollout planning for ArB will address this sort of issues and when it needs to impact on this document. There are also issues such as user tools for creating IG, that will need to be addressed. How does this relate to the HSSP process? Singureanu noted that they are referencing that in the annexes. HSSP change control process and this control process may or may not be the same. HSSP is a DSTU document so there is opportunity for comment and review. TermInfo is also a DSTU and they also have a Gforge site.
   • New Business
     • The Clinical Genomics presented and received steering division approval for a project aproval changed on HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Clinical Genomics; Fully LOINC-Qualified Genetic Variation Model, Release 1
     • Hammond noted that PIC has a second iteration of the DMP and now we should decide which group, Board or TSC, need to approve this second iteration. Decision: There was consensus that the TSC should review and approve the document.
     • Project Templates will be approved on Sunday evening.
   1. • Mirth tooling issues will be discussed on Sunday evening agenda

Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm PT