2013-06-19 TRAC

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# GoToMeeting ID: 660-939-197		Date: 2013-06-19 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	regrets	Rick Haddorff	x	Melva Peters
x	John Quinn	x	Austin Kreisler	x	Ron Parker

Agenda

• Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
• Review minutes of 2013-06-12 TRAC
• Ron to present on Governance Point development
• review updated 890/901 PSS with Melva
• review Melva's assessment of the T3F review

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
• Cancel next week's meeting in Pat's absence.
• Review minutes of 2013-06-12 TRAC Austin moves and John seconds. Unanimously approved
• Ron to present on Governance Point development
  • Slide show described. E.g. governance vector is transparence of consensus-based standards development organization. Processes include posting minutes, etc. while people/roles are TSC as oversight and activities conducted by WG cochairs. The metrics are WGH. Austin notes that WGH is bundling of a set of metrics but itself is not a precept. Other precepts also included need to be surfaced.
  • precept is the guidance for the processes, metrics, people: it is expressed in objectives, policies, etc.
  • Review with risk assessment document:
  • Vector Methodology:
    • Identify Risks (e.g. Risk ID 27)
      • Define Mitigations (e.g. accelerate implementation of product families, implement connectathons)
        • Develop Governance Vector(s)
          • Document using Precepts e.g. transparence of consensus-based standards, adherence to ANSI Essential Requirements
            • e.g. product requests will be narrowly focused for rapid development
            • Requestors/Implementers for projects will actively participate in product development.
          • Define metrics e.g. HL7 standards are selected for implementation, standards once published are implemented within 12 months
          • Define processes e.g. checking the wiki
          • Assign roles, i.e. separation of concerns defined. At last one cochair must monitor whether participants are actively engaged in the project. If interest is not indicated, the cochair should terminate the project. Project proponents who are also cochairs can experience conflict of interest. Austin has suggested splitting SDWG into two groups focused separately on IG development versus the core standard development but the idea has not been well received by some.
        • Implement with management
        • Assess
  • Austin is concerned that CDA is a very popular standard is for a very broad audience.
  • GOM addresses many issues that are being effectively mitigated already. Identify the emergent issues with the strategic initiative, perhaps using vitality assessment results. Pay attention to the things that are broken - things we see in the GOM that are broken. Need also to scope down to the things that are in the purview of TSC, and make recommendations for areas outside of TSC scope.
  • Ron also separates the identification of the management of these things versus the activity of monitoring.
  • Ron leaves the call.
  • Austin notes that there are items in the GOM that are broken, we forward recommendations to the GOC to fix it. Pat suggests there is already a governance point in the GOM but needs the definition using processes, roles, etc.
  • Risk ID 26 excessive rigor of reconciliation in draft stages- DSTU/Informative ballots drag out trying to get every negative withdrawn. Melva asks if it's the overall process rather than the reconciliation choice.
    • Mitigations: communicate definitions of reconciliation rigor for each type of ballot, evaluate changes to HL7 rules/processes, implement online reconciliation tool, developing HL7 Essential Requirements WRT ANSI ES to separate HL7 processes from GOM. Need to establish gateways on reconciliation for draft stages, e.g. draft for comment gets one month. DSTU and informative get one WGM cycle.
      • Governance Vector:
        • • Document using Precepts
          • Define metrics e.g. draft for comment gets one month. DSTU and informative get one WGM cycle or you get a 'ding'.
          • Define processes
          • Assign roles
        • Implement
        • Assess
• Being at time, Pat asks everyone to review the vector methodology against these two risks for examples.
• In two weeks, review updated 890/901 PSS with Melva, review Melva's assessment of the T3F review

Adjourned 10:58 AM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2013-06-26 TRAC.