2013-01-12 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:26, 17 January 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for 2013 Jan WGM in Phoenix AZ USA

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Sedona 2

Date: 2013-01-12
Time: 9a - 5p local time
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler (Chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
Q2, Q3, Q4 Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Q1 Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Andy Stechishin T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes)

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. TSC policies and procedure review based on outcomes of ANSI audit
  5. Risk Assessment Project update
    • Review critical risks and issues

Q2 - Governance Continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Work Group Health/PBS Metrics measurements review
    • Risk assessment impact on WGH/PBS metrics
  2. Governance for Product lines
    • Risk assessment impact on product lines

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Data types final recommendation
  2. Tooling Strategic Plan discussion - see draft Tooling Strategy endorsed by Tooling WG 2012-12-13


Q4 - Management: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. TSC Planning and Open Issue Review
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles at Tracker 2165 see draft DAM definition from ArB
      • Status from HL7 SAIF IG (Artifact Definition) to confirm? What about Functional Profiles?
    • V3 R2 Datatypes backwards compatibility at Tracker 2344 pending review by John Quinn and the BoD
    • Consolidation of approaches for submitting enhancement requests to standards at Tracker 2400 - V2.x has one approach, DSTU another and so on.
    • Formalization of process for requesting publication of errata at Tracker 2403
    • HL7 Terminology Authority - Policies and Procedures at Tracker 2416 - any available update from Austin's feedback
    • TSC Guidance on reballoting standards at Tracker 2441
    • Address Risk assessment issues
  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
  3. Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
    • Child Health review
    • CCOW review
  4. TSC Project Review
  5. Announcement: Arden Syntax WG has submitted the normative publication request for Arden Syntax 2.9 (No TSC approval required)

Sunday

  1. ArB
    • BAM discussion
    • BAM, Product line governance, product line management next steps


MONDAY LUNCH *new* (Sonora)

  1. BAM discussion continued

Tuesday lunch

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter, Decision Making Practices
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices


Supporting Documents


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Governance: 9 am to 10:30 am

Convened at 9:05 AM

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) - no guests this morning; welcome to new members
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: no changes identified
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. TSC policies and procedure review based on outcomes of ANSI audit
    • Suggests break out the ANSI-relevant portions of the GOM from the rest of our procedures.
      • Discussion ensued on standards interpretation in #6. Implications for LOI, LRI, and C-CDA and a standards help desk for MU IGs. This needs to be revised that the interpretations happen in the Work Groups as delegated by the TSC and address whether the TSC needs to review such interpretations. John notes the TSC should be aware of the referral and triage and ensure the documentation of the interpretation is completed. Interpretation policy is part of ANSI essential requirements. Calvin moves that requests for interpretations be referred to the WGs from which the standard comes. John modified that Staff and TSC put in processes and procedures for documentation on these referrals that the responses be recorded and available. This is not where someone just sends and email to the WG but a centralized location on the web page where such requests can be captured. TSC issues list also has centralized requests for errata, enhancements, and such interpretations may also be part of such centralized recording. MOTION: Motion by Calvin, Andy seconds: Formal requests for interpretation are delegated to the WGs with a stipulation that the questions received and answers generated must be documented and available. The formal processes that should be followed must be developed in the upcoming weeks.
        • ACTION ITEM: develop processes that should be followed in receipt and address of requests for interpretation. Assigned to Freida and referred to ES.
        • Discussion on the ability from HQ or members or inquirers all can submit their requests to this documentation location. Revenue opportunities and membership requirements at this level will not be addressed by the Board at this WGM.
        • VOTE: Unanimously approved
      • Number 7 timing of PINs form discussed at length. Woody notes the next event prior to the ballot is the NIB. Jean notes when the TSC is notified that a project is going to go to normative ballot. Mead notes the PSS indicates if a project is going to go normative eventually. ISO for example sets a clock on a project and perhaps ANSI wants us to use such a mechanism. Woody suggests PSS to DSTU 18 months, but Freida notes that ANSI doesn't care about DSTU. Jean suggests that the clock started when you file a PSS that asserts you are going normative. Freida notes three years gives you time from the PSS to ballot comment, have a DSTU and ballot normative. Calvin notes changing IP rules ensure where people camp-out their standards and agrees with Jean that a separate step to approve a project for the normative ballot. It is also noted in 25 that they no longer want to see more than 2 normative ballots or require a ballot to start over opening the scope of comment on content and pool. Separate scope approval or notification of Normative work with 18 month clock. DSTU expiration then discussed; languishing DSTUs currently on the book need to be gently addressed and ease into more draconian measures. Freida notes that this will require changes to the 2013 PSS.
        • MOTION: Calvin moves and Jean seconds that Separate scope approval or notification of Normative work with 18 month clock be used as PINS trigger and the TSC will conduct a project review if the project has not gone to ballot at that time. Existing DSTU project can go straight to TSC and not required for SD revision.
        • DISCUSSION Discussion ensued that Steering Divisions should be reviewing project statuses and such review may be done with a new project scope statement with grandfathering existing projects with evidence of a WG vote that they will be going to normative as the notification point. Mead would rather see just the WG assert they are now proceeding with normative. Ron notes this trigger needs to be built into WGH metrics Question has to be asked routinely and someone needs to respond. Austin notes if a WG submits a NIB and they did not perform the trigger do we prohibit them from balloting? Calvin suggests that DSTU's submit a revised PSS to the TSC when they prepare their normative. Need Steering Division approval on an entirely new PSS before going to the TSC. Still have issue with NIB going normative with no approved PSS the TSC should prohibit participation in that cycle. If you can get your I's dotted and T's crossed. Suggested to add a checkbox to the PSS to indicate that this is a normative notification
        • VOTE: unanimously approved.
      • Nbr 9 agreed.
      • Nbr 10 regarding disposition of comments produced suggestions on block voting in comment disposition. Calvin notes that sponsored projects have individuals with committed resources that will take on the disposition recommendations for block voting.
      • Nbr 13 Woody notes that it only is affected if the ballot is challenged for proper balance. Concern is if you close enrollment before voting and don't have balance at that time. Ron recounts balance stipulations from ANSI essential requirements. Jean suggests you can't close enrollment and open vote if you're unbalanced. Freida cites the option to enroll in all ballot pools as an issue. Austin suggests that you may have to leave the voting period open as well after balanced enrollment is reached. Timing of WGMs after ballot close becomes an issue and force a decision by WG to pull the ballot. Jean notes that the 27 votes from Canada might skew a balanced pool. This is a potential risk but not ready to make a motion at this time. You can still adopt a standard if the pool is unbalanced unless someone objects. Wait and see if ANSI approves the standard in question.
      • Nbr 22 reconciliation completed in a year; if you cannot make progress what is our "or else". Freida suggests they be reviewed by the TSC and the WG provide a rationale to allow the project (Informative, DSTU or Normative) to continue and seek an extension for normative.
      • Nbr 25 still under review by ANSI
      • Nbr 26 definition of consensus body and address of abstentions referred back to signing up for all pools and also at leaving the enrollment pools open after ballot open. Block voters commonly all suggested to enroll for everything and all go in on the Sunday night to change their vote to abstain. Austin's document on guidelines for reballoting is already addressing some of the recommendations on the number of ballots to develop a standard and ballot fatigue. Jean recounts finding errors right before the ballot and choosing to negative vote the issue in the ballot instead of correcting the material and submitting to the next ballot. Material that is not ready should not be sent to ballot. Looking at a step for a cochair to assert that the material is complete and ready for ballot. Woody asserts we should push back to WGs that they should reduce their scope in advance and not on the fly. Austin's suggestion was to constrain scope and gradually add scope, but need to avoid HAI history but enable DCMs.
    • Defer the rest of the document not in yellow to following calls and perhaps a task force.

Recessed at 10:41 AM



Q2 - Governance Continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Reconvened 11:00 AM

  • ANSI/GOM Review Task force recommendations - Jean will lead, with Freida as GOC representative. Pat and Calvin also named.
  1. Data types final recommendation
    • John and Austin will present to Board on Tuesday as this recommendation was by request of the Board. They need to assess costs for publishing and tooling to be able to accomplish. Woody notes the tooling costs are nominal as the current tooling will render this fairly easily. The last report to the Board on this topic was not received well.
  2. Risk Assessment Project update
    • Austin reviews the status document
    • Review critical risks and issues
      • Risk ID 17: Need publication clock from time of ballot to completion of reconciliation and submit request for publication. Mitigation is in the reballoting/reconciliation document. Unpublished ballots measures passed by the numbers and posted reconciliation.
      • Additional participation is happily accepted. Charlie notes that this serves as input to governance precepts; take the metric that the mitigation strategy points to and attach that to the governance framework, people processes, standards and guidelines for building the precept. Need a different meeting time for Charlie to be able to participate. Need a small group to draft precepts and review with TSC.
      • Task force discussed moving this to an ongoing committee. MOTION: Calvin moves and Charlie seconds such creation. In discussion it is noted that this would be a continual function of the TSC delegated to a subcommittee. Discussion ensued on risk assessment also taking on precept development. Calvin suggests "Business Continuity" - risk assessment/mitigation and governance point development. M&C to make preliminary recommendations for review by TSC, defining governance points. TSC Governance also recommended; Calvin worries about governance term in a volunteer organization. "TSC Risk Assessment Committee" (TRAC) - charge is risk assessment and governance points. Task force needs M&C for approval
        • VOTE: Unanimously approved.
      • Pat volunteers to chair the committee. Charlie requests a new time. ACTION ITEM: Pat and Lynn will coordinate a Doodle poll for scheduling "TSC Risk Assessment Committee" (TRAC). Melva also volunteers. Austin will participate to some degree.
      • Charlie states a draft M&C statement : The XXX Committee is responsible for conducting on-going/periodic organizational risk assessment using the defined Risk Assessment Methodology, and for taking the specific output of the Risk Assessment Methodology to author formal Governance Points which define the associate Precepts*, People-in-Roles, Processes, and Metrics associated with mitigating and/or otherwise managing the identified risks. The content of each Governance Point will be presented to the TSC for editing, formal approval, and operationalization. (*Precepts === Objectives, Policies, Standards, Guidelines)
  3. Work Group Health/PBS Metrics measurements review
    • Risk assessment impact on WGH/PBS metrics - defer to the "TSC Risk Assessment Committee" (TRAC)
  4. Governance for Product lines
    • Risk assessment impact on product lines and product families
    • Charlie notes the metamodel for BAM there is notion of value and activities to realize value tied to concept of Product. Product also part of product collection - product line is consumer perspective, product family by producer perspective. Product collection definition is about the extent of what they have done. They have state machines for products and product collections, from which you may tease out risk within the product life cycle. They hope to hand off to the Steering Divisions to populate these models.
    • ArB assignment was to build the to-be business model, not the as-is. They document only as much of the existing situation that fits into the new BAM. Product Line Architecture program will take on overall responsibility for the development of the models. Stay tuned to ArB presentation tomorrow night.
    • TRAC should review where a particular risk item is addressed at which level in the organization, e.g. in Product Line or Product Family.
    • Another area of the organization as WGH: anything in WGH should be assessed by a metric that is tied to a risk. Low likelihood and low criticality measures should be evaluated for pruning.
    • Risk Assessment Issues: evaluate if each issue is ours to deal with
      • Risk ID 2: volunteer liaisons on work with SDOs; for John and Austin to bring to Board. Woody notes if there's not a session at WGM to discuss vocabulary constraints with ISO. Cost and legitimacy of representation issues arise. Mead challenges that we should review from the perspective to see if any of them are relevant to us. If ONC isn't interested in SCO the way Canada's Standards Collaborative works it may be discontinued.
      • From reviewing the spreadsheet for those risk items that were reviewed by the task force.
      • Risk ID 94, from SI 2.2 - needed level of expertise continues to increase. This also popped up from SWOTs as a critical issue. Calvin finds that FHIR is specifically a reaction to this. It is also compounding the problem. Woody finds execution technical issues alleviated this week but the healthcare issues remain - to what degree should a simple design paradigm allow simplistic designs. DCMs are not necessarily mappable to V3 either. Austin notes CDA implementations and tooling are also being developed in another thread. General agreement we need to do more on this. Mead would like to see the whole TSC discuss rather than a task force, as it's the most critical. Facilitator training project is a first effort but it is not sufficient. Calvin would like to see brainstorming on this. He suggests the CDA approach as an example to apply to the other areas. Similarly Risk ID (RI) 115 and RI 119 reiterate that we need to address this.
      • RI 98, 99, 100 not TSC issue but an actively addressed Board issue
      • RI 112 is in flight with impact with BAM product line architecture; begging the question of who is our customer. Product lines address how standards are developed as compared to how they are used. Product strategy is what do we develop… Are we developing the wrong things or just not positioning them correctly. If we develop what our members ask for, are they not our consumers? Calvin notes that 98% of the users of the standards don't show up at WGMs. Statement should be that the risk is that we fail to build standards that address customer needs but more that we don't package it sufficiently to address customer needs. Calvin sees those not already familiar with the RIM having such difficulty picking up our standards. Need sensitivity to the group picking up the standard. The other issue is benefits of membership regarding how easy to use we make our standards for those that are not members. Austin asserts our trio of projects on governance management and methodology are focused on this. As a current issue we have multiple things in flight dealing with this issue.
      • RI146 ANSI communication and RI147 for policy and process with ANSI will be addressed by the Task Force.
      • Melva notes standards within Work Groups that don't align with other WGs. It is asserted that the task force probably didn't get to reviewing that line item before the WGM.

Recessed for lunch at 1:30 PM

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

Convened at 1:24 PM

  1. Tooling Strategic Plan discussion - see draft Tooling Strategy endorsed by Tooling WG 2012-12-13
    • John presents a slide show
    • exclude slide 4 from any presentations prior to Tuesday's Board meeting
    • Definition of of external tools versus internal tools e.g. BlueButton or MWB. Some tools using Eclipse public license but don't have to issue public license with the tool developed. Version a.1 may have been released as open source but a.2 may not.
    • Discussion ensued on contributing factors to lack of response for call for toolsmiths. Calvin notes MDHT has exception to the rule, having corporate support. Dave Carlson has not been here but Sean Muir has been here. They have been active in the S&I space and act as the NIST validator. Andy suggests we look at how RIMBAA works, where their participants don't really attend standards development meetings (WGM) but have good participation in their own out of cycle meetings. MDHT is under Open Health Tools, so are not as active in HL7 Tooling. CDA Tools implementers have also lacked presence in the Tooling WG. SDWG is where their activity has been but a spinoff created with alignment publishing and tooling. MDHT might be publicized and endorsed as an HL7-recommended tool but can't be proclaimed an HL7 tool.
    • Goal 1 for applicability to "all" HL7 standards may not be prudent. Mead feels we will have to pick and choose. Andy notes that we do indeed have to prioritize. Without active participation from the affected WG especially with requirements definition, there won't be much activity on a thread. There is typically not as much focus on enabling adoption of a standard during its development for ballot.
    • Calvin voices concern on open-source activity with the potential for a closed environment. John represents HL7 to OHT and we regard that relationship with HL7 as a consumer, not a producer. This approach may change. Attendance with OHT changes and is typically more of start-up businesses. John finds the OHT relationships typically repetitive on healthcare industry background. RIM publication has RIM-lite for OHT (MDHT, etc.) as well as full publication. If MDHT or other tool has used the full publication we would have to audit these tools. They can have an import capability to bring in a licensed version the user obtains based on membership. Calvin notes his concern that the MDHT is fully loaded with HL7 Implementation Guides. Woody notes some IGs were initially released as public domain. Org members need to maintain continuous membership to distribute HL7 IP. Of the top 50 we have good compliance but hundreds of others do not. MDHT should be distributed empty, but the web site has all the IGs embedded. Enforcement of the current IP as an untenable approach reiterated.
    • Existing reliance on volunteers and some contracted development will be challenged by the rollout of the new IP policy and revenue. How can you prioritize spending on Tooling in the same budget that is taking an even more conservative approach. The Advisory Board and consultants all recommended tooling funding is needed but yet the Board has not allocated adequate funding.
    • Platform and methodology consistent across the board would be desirable, but as in the case of Lantana (Trifolia) and MDHT are very different. Andy notes that part of goal number 1 is to set expectations, even in the acceptance of the donation of a tool.
    • Mead asks if recommendations on which tools needed development were included. John notes that it depends on who you hear from, focuses on Pharma or on other industry segments color the recommendations.
    • Calvin asks if the Board has considered if the standards are free but the processible files for tools becomes membership benefit. It's perhaps too technical for many of the Board members. Calvin cites the gaining popularity of MDHT. An HL7 certification and endorsement process might make a good Goal 4. TSC-suggested fourth goal is to seek a way that open source tools could be certified to legally hold HL7 IP such that a process developed that HL7 members could acquire the open source tool with HL7's recognition of usability and endorsement. They should separate the tool from the source files, and import membership benefit processible files. C-CDA was built using the tool, whether using CDA Lite or full.
    • What will be the TSC Approval process. Documents emailed to TSC. Review again on Tuesday lunch.
  2. TSC Planning and Open Issue Review
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles at Tracker 2165 see draft DAM definition from ArB and draft FP definition
      • Hoping to find out the status of that Artifact Definition project later this week. Woody notes section 4.3 is cart before the horse. If the traceable logical models are planned to be derived from it, does the nutrition DAM count as one? Charlie notes this lacks the SAIF Implementation Guide for HL7 that describes what you need at each implementable, conceptual, logical level. This DAM definition is a good conceptual level. What about the logical and implementable? Jean notes they got comments on how their DAMS should look. Jean volunteers to help with the definition of the DAM levels - Woody encourages him to join the SAIF Artifact Definition project calls.
      • Jean asks if we need to pursue corrections to those balloted artifacts already published (e.g. CIC) - we would need to pursue. Charlie discussed with them recently and CIC is happy to plan for such model levels corresponding with informative/normative once they know what artifacts are needed to correspond to these levels.
      • Additional comments can also be added to the discussion tab as Woody has done.
      • Functional Profiles definition on wiki incomplete. Pat notes that Helen had developed a draft of a definition. ACTION ITEM: Pat will obtain the FP definition from Helen. Charlie offers to review it using terms such as the ArB recommendation for a DAM.
    • V3 R2 Datatypes backwards compatibility at Tracker 2344 pending review by John Quinn and the BoD - as discussed earlier
    • Consolidation of approaches for submitting enhancement requests to standards at Tracker 2400 - V2.x has one approach, DSTU another and so on.
      • This fits in with the potential for a help desk. Need to do it but not sure how, and need to see what the Board says. Calvin notes SDWG is dealing with this in their subset. Also fits in or is a subset of the formal mechanism for requests for interpretation as discussed earlier. If you make an effort as a poster child for CCDA it risks not being applicable to all paradigms. Calvin notes that if we're in the standards development game we must also be in the standards support game.
      • We have a variety of mechanisms for submitting enhancements and identifying defects in standards. E.g. a GForge tracker requires the submitter to have a gforge account. Accepting such requests will open you up to spam.


Recessed at 3:06 PM


Q4 - Management: 3:30 pm to 5pm

Reconvened at 3:26 PM

  1. TSC Planning and Open Issue Review
    • Re enhancement requests: we will revisit after illumination from the board on the plans for a help desk.
    • Formalization of process for requesting publication of errata at Tracker 2403
      • Austin has discussed with John and suggests we consider a different element on the publication request. Calvin notes that some feel if the changes are significant they should be balloted. Otherwise it's just a list of addenda. They do not want to re-publish the whole thing. Republishing is considered a new version. Calvin notes if a document cited in MU at a certain version is released with errata included in a new version. If there were only 3 items a separate sheet is fine but CCDA had a huge list. Timely turnaround needs to be produced for the NIST validators. Regulators would not update their publications to accommodate a new release of the standard. Errata publications go to John and not the TSC. Full re-publication release with errata would be more useful to implementers. A publication with errata inclusion might incorporate a release number such as 2.0.1. Pat speaks to another SDO's processes (X12) that publish the original standard and also a combined guide which does not profess to be the federal standard but refers back to the standard that was balloted and approved. John notes that publishing a new release with addenda and errata combined can introduce new errors.
      • Current CCDA errata are being handled by current process. New process using publication request form indicates a committee vote but would be approved by John. MOTION: Calvin moves and Tony seconds that notification of request to print errata will utilize the request to publish form and be sent to John for approval.
      • Discussion: Normative publications go to HQ, Informative and DSTU come to TSC, and errata are approved by John. Calvin notes that errata comments on the wiki by SDWG have been moved largely to the DSTU comments site due to improvements on the web site.
      • Vote: ' unanimously approved.
        • ACTION ITEM: Lynn will update the publication request form to include errata and bring back to TSC to review.
    • HL7 Terminology Authority - Policies and Procedures at Tracker 2416 - any available update from Austin's feedback
      • Briefly touched on it at the last meeting. Lynn nagged Ted to include it on their last agenda, and Jim Case is expected to give an update soon.
    • TSC Guidance on reballoting standards at Tracker 2441
      • discussed on the last call, Austin noted he would describe QA step prior to final publication processes other than a reballot.
      • Jean notes that he's facilitator for the scratchpad workspace and will be revitalizing that project. Melva notes that Pharmacy has a checklist for what had to be covered prior to publication. Austin adds each product line may have their own QA checklist.
      • From the prior discussion Woody offers correction to the minutes that he has a category page not a guidelines document.
    • Address Risk assessment issues - discussed earlier.
  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Product family/ product lines
    • fallout from Board meeting
  3. Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
    • CCOW review
    • CCOW meeting on Monday -- Someone needs to check, each quarter, Tony in Q1, Pat will do Q2, (though Andy will be next door and volunteers to check Q1 and Q2) Woody will check Q3, and Lynn will check Q4. Ask their representatives to hunt down Austin to discuss their Work Group. Current singular cochair is Michael Russell from Duke.
    • Child Health review
      • Spoke with Gaye Dolin last WGM who was going to try to resuscitate and update at this WGM. They would transition to EHR if they dissolved. They have three cochairs and a vocabulary facilitator. Mead and Melva will address at the Steering Division; Austin will inform Gaye that she should address at the Steering Division as well.
    • Melva notes they will also review the WGH
    • Andy moves that RIMBAA be excluded from measurement of participation in the ballot, seconded by Charlie. Other work groups that do not ballot as part of their purview in T3SD have this exception. This is a crack in the DAM notes John. Woody thinks that their 'ballot' would be the RIM. Austin asks why they don't ballot their white papers as informative documents. Requirements or implementation guidance in these white papers would be eligible for ballot. They have so far chosen not to ballot them. RIMBAA's petition to move to T3SD was not accepted by FTSD. Motion restated: For RIMBAA the ballot metric would not be used as part of their assessment of WGH. Woody suggests we amend that RIMBAA receive a suggestion to ballot their white papers as informative documents. Freida asks if a peer review process is sufficient. Informative ballot results in an HL7 publication. Andy withdraws the motion based on the recommendation.
  4. TSC Project Review
    • Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard
      • TSC to review /endorse WGM Effectiveness metrics along with determining the red/yellow/green criteria
      • Need to discuss with Dave on an upcoming call after more careful review. Mead would like to see the hard numbers rather than percentages. For example, the rating of yellow on Attend Agenda Minutes tab records if they didn't fill out the survey but the dropdown on the survey only lists WGs and SDs are not in the list. Please remove Steering Divisions from the WGM Effectiveness assessments based on survey.
      • Jean notes with Sydney WGM in addition to the US and International attendees he would like to see it split out by host country attendees from non-host country. You may need to go regional with a WGM in Germany identifying the entire EU attendees. Invite Dave to a call to review on a Governance topic.
    • T3F Retrospective Review
      • draft results
      • Some of the areas in which the TSC fared poorly involve areas over which they do not exercise control.
      • What do we want to do with it? We promised to look at ourselves after three years, which we have now done. Refer this to the Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) for evaluation in their process.
      • Motion: Woody moves we accept the report and refer it to the TRAC and close the project. Andy seconds. Vote: unanimously approved
  5. Announcement: Arden Syntax WG has submitted the normative publication request for Arden Syntax 2.9 (No TSC approval required)
  6. move forward the TSC M&C discussion
    • Charlie will write up a blurb for SD chairs to review regarding incorporating SAIF concepts into M&C.
    • Why is the TSC the "Technical" steering committee. Freida suggests it had to do with TCs vs. SIGs. Initially this was oversight of groups that create technical content.
    • Freida notes under our Mandate d) we are now managing not providing the official interpretation of standards.
    • Technical architecture Mandate b) we should refer to SAIF.
    • Charlie is the representative to ORC. Freida is the representative to the GOC
    • Calvin moves approval of M&C, seconded by Melva. Unanimously approved.

Adjourned at 5:05 PM

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • develop processes that should be followed in receipt and address of requests for interpretation. Assigned to Freida and referred to ES
  • Pat and Lynn will coordinate a Doodle poll for scheduling "TSC Risk Assessment Committee" (TRAC) and Pat will establish and schedule meetings with Melva and Austin.
    • TRAC needs M&C for approval
    • Pat and TRAC to evaluate Risk assessment impact on WGH/PBS metrics and the T3F Retrospective Review draft results for evaluation in their process.
  • Jean volunteers to help with the definition of the DAM levels as part of the Artifact Definition project
  • Pat will obtain the FP definition from Helen. Charlie offers to review it using terms such as the ArB recommendation for a DAM.
  • add a checkbox to the PSS to indicate that this project scope is submitted as a normative notification
  • Jean will establish and schedule the ANSI/GOM Review Task force, with Freida, Pat and Calvin.
  • Lynn will update the publication request form to include errata and bring back to TSC to review.
  • Invite Dave to discuss WGM Effectiveness Metrics on an upcoming call
  • Lynn will close the T3F Retrospective Review project and refer the report to the TRAC for consideration
  • Lynn will update the M&C
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2013-01-12_TSC_WGM_Agenda&oldid=10880"