2013-09-21 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:33, 21 September 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for 2013Sep Cambridge WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Hyatt Regency Cambridge William Dawes A

Date: 2013-09-21
Time: 9 AM-5 PM EDT
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
Giorgio Cangioli Ad-Hoc member, HL7 Affiliate Representative-elect
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ArB Vice-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD 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
x Ken McCaslin Ad-Hoc member
Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Chair
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-Chair-elect
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  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. Election of TSC Chair
  5. Strategic Initiatives discussion
  6. Work Group Health
    • Review of WGH metrics
    • Review draft results of Midtier Governance/Management group health

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

  1. Member Benefits - Chuck Jaffe (30 Mins)
  2. Governance Group reports
    • TRAC (Pat) (30 minutes)
    • Overview of TRAC process
      • Inventory sources of risks reviewed and associated vitality triggers
      • Identified issues
      • Critical Risks
      • Proposed Governance Points
      • Sources for Continued Review

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

  1. TSC Messages for the week
    • Co-chairs dinner
    • General session (time limited to 5 minutes)

Q3 - Management - ? - 3 pm

  1. High Priority Issues
    • Issue - IHE Balloting - Form a task force?
    • Issue - Making final "draft" versions of standards available for work group QA review
      • Problem is that this content is close enough to final that posting this publicly (wiki or hl7 website) may violate new 90 day members on availability policy
      • Need a mechanism to make available for QA review while restricting access to HL7 members only

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. TSC Review and Planning
    • (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
    • (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  2. Management Reports
    • CTO/Tooling Report (John Quinn)
    • US Realm Task Force
  3. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  4. TSC Project Review
    TSC-Sponsored projects
    • HL7 Product Line Architecture PI# 916
    • HL7 BAM (Business Architecture Model) PI# 915
    • Risk Assessment and Governance for HL7 Architecture Program PI# 901
    • FHIR DSTU Ballot PI# 891
    • TSC Governance System for HL7 Business Architecture PI# 890
    • HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project PI# 799
    • SAIF Pilot Coordination PI# 764
    • HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide PI# 763
    • SAIF Architecture Program PI# 751
    TSC Co-sponsored projects:
    • Extend DSTU comments site functionality to informative and normative PI 1032
    • Pilot SAIF ECCF SFM in publication request (on hold) PI 996
    • WGM Room Assignment Project 2013 PI# 944
    • Interoperability Resources for Healthcare (IR4H) Methodology Design PI# 809
    • Preparation of SAIF Book for Informative Ballot PI# 807
    • EHR System Function and Information Model (EHR-S FIM) PI# 688
    TSC Three-year planning projects
    • FHIR Program PI 883 next milestone date currently 2013May...
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  5. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links

Architecture and Tooling:

  1. BAM
    • Enacting Steering Division review of projects; specificity of project scope vs ballot artifact
      • vitality triggers by time-based (aging) or event-based (NIB)

Sunday

    • FGB (Ron) (30 minutes)
      • TBD
    • FMG (30 minutes)
      • New member appointment
  2. ArB (30 minutes)

Wednesday lunch

Data Access Framework (DAF) of S&I Framework (John Feikema)

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      (September) Review TSC SWOT

Supporting Documents

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Convened 9:01 AM, with no visitors, John Roberts attending as invited guest.
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: move Q2 FGB to Sunday, may move Q4 ArB membership re-confirmation to Sunday. Wednesday lunch will also have DAF initiative presentation from S&I Framework. Chuck's presentation is nominally in Q2, but whenever he breaks away we will insert his topic. Agenda accepted by general consent.
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Election of TSC Chair - Andy moves and Lorraine seconds naming Ken McCaslin as TSC Chair for 2014-2015. No substantial discussion ensued. Unanimously approved.
  5. Strategic Initiatives discussion
    • WGM Effectiveness statistics
      • WGM Effectivness spreadsheet reviewed. Draft TSC weighting of the different factors discussed. One example criteria representing tutorials could be indicated by the number of tutorials cancelled noted Melva. After the Sydney meeting, the statistics are consistent with US attendees vs non-US attendees.
      • Tutorials in Sydney were higher across the board, number of tutorials, number of students, students/tutorial, similar to Baltimore.
      • 'Students' column is for the paid attendees to the tutorials.
      • Profit/loss weighting discussed, drafted as a 1, but as a factor under the influence of the TSC it means little. However, Melva notes that the quotes for the venues and locations are all over the board for international locations, and some locations are scheduled with the deliberate knowledge that they will lose money. Rather than profit/loss, using delta to budget would be another metric.
      • General trend is positive 2011 to 2012 to 2013, in terms of representation of TSC efforts on this Strategic Initiative, to report to the Board. The incoming Board chair has an opportunity to revisit/revise the
    • Strategic_Initiatives_TSC_Dashboard suggestions
      • We will not differentiate between international and US based meetings for SI dashboard, as comparing US based meetings among themselves gives little feedback. Care must be taken to consider local/national holidays in scheduling international meetings. Local representation is difficult to measure for locations like Cologne, or Rio de Janeiro
      • Other dashboard gauges needing report: Industry Responsiveness and easier implementation, Product Ballot Quality. Product Ballot Quality has started but the team has not met again to review the comparison of the statistics to the manual review.
      • Cross artifact consistency question: should DAMs or foundational standards which define no artifacts be included among the standards publications on which the checkmarks are counted for using HL7-managed CMETs, harmonized design patterns, or consistent with common Domain models. Harmonized design patterns have not taken off. Ron notes that conformity assessment with the re-emergence of SAIF will obviate drivers for such design patterns that have not been previously surfaced.
      • DAMs should consider the common domain models elsewhere in the organization, like clinical statement or common product model. Calvin notes that DAMs are not necessarily (by definition) RIM-based expressions. The examples are expressions of RIM-based semantics. He feels that the DAMs should not be held to these expressions. DAMs have been expressed as V3 artifacts when they are not necessarily so, but the business-level requirements not associated with a paradigm. DAMs can be considered foundational standards. We may wish to change this to survey of newly published V3 logical standards (not conceptual - DAMs - or implementable - IGs). John notes that CIMI has as an expression of bringing in different models and exchanging this with others. For example they use an input of the RIM and an output of CDA - you lose property information from the RIM when expressed in CDA… backwards traceability is a highly desired property.
      • Methodology of doing DAMs, reflecting the views of the people in the domain, is the central notion. Consistency between DAMs discussed. Behavioral pieces, model pieces, an elaboration of the original definition into the common parts need better expression. Jean notes that looking at different DAMs yielded completely different results. Mead notes fundamental differences in the approaches to modeling data that need to be resolved, not to a middle ground but to choose one approach. Need to address "how is HL7 going to publish DAMs". Similarly Implementation Guides have different approaches which led to CDS' perception that you could throw logical and implementable together into the big IG bucket. Each product line probably needs to define how their implementation guides should look. Andy suggests we look at IETF RFC 2119 for a starting point.
      • Austin asks about defining cross-artifact consistency for DAMs and IGs - IG conformance definitions would be by Product Family; DAM definition by ArB exists. Jean was planning to address DAM definition with CIC, who produces many of our DAMs, and have them establish something more than a style guide. How will we measure consistency, does it have a defined scope, etc. Andy suggests we ask CGIT for definition of IGs. While they have typically focused on V2.x we should ask them first. SDWG is the de facto group for CDA IGs, notes Calvin. For V3 would it be MnM? Does ArB need to make a one-page definition to drive the discussion with the other groups (Lorraine)? Austin notes that we created a one-pager for what defines normative versus informative, etc. and could be used as the kind of template or scope for which such a definition could be made universally and then made product family specific.
      • We are challenged by the CDS vMR, the SDC, are coming in completely agnostic to any existing work, not even a derivation from the RIM. Did they come to HL7 because they thought getting our SDO stamp was "easy"? HL7 has the best representation from the provider perspective, but not that we would rubber-stamp it and send it out the door. These initiatives are caught in the middle between proper standards development at HL7 and the Congressional requirements imposed upon them. Defer this to US Realm Task Force discussion.
      • Returning to cross-artifact consistency on DAMs, we need a statement on what kind of consistency we need, for a value proposition. We want to capture the thinking of the domain experts, and not prevent the SMEs from giving their knowledge without forcing them into a modeler's frameset. Developing the vMR from scratch with XML, elements of the ITS, etc should be in that statement up front, not overly burdensome to that level. What do you need to be carrying in your bag when you come through the door to HL7, e.g. terminology/vocabulary etc when you bring logical/implementable, and respect the level of SAIF ECCF you're at. OWL space ontologies are coming in as well in health care. What is an HL7 conceptual-level or logical-level ontology look like, notes Jean. What is a conceptual-level model, DAM or ontology - what is the desired level of consistency? ACTION ITEM: Calvin and Lorraine, aided by Jean will work on DAM desirable consistency value proposition, and conformance definition. They may wish to ask for aid by AMS.
      • What about a general definition of an IG - Freida and Andy have volunteered. Need someone from CGIT… Rob Snelnick is suggested. Freida will speak with Rob. ACTION ITEM: Andy, with Freida, Ken McCaslin, and John Roberts will work on IG definition and conformance and inviting Rob.

Recessed at 10:30 AM

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

  1. ArB leadership: Ron is leaving ArB; John explains his process for nominating Tony as new ArB chair. Motion: John moves and Lorraine seconds Tony's nomination. Ron explains that he can support the ArB until the end of the WGM. Tony now has a seat on the TSC as FTSD, but would potentially hold two votes so may need to find a replacement representative on FTSD. Tony notes that there is also a potential candidate for FTSD which can review on Monday night. Vote: Unanimously approved
  2. Work Group Health
    • Review of WGH metrics - no new suggestions
    • Review draft results of Midtier Governance/Management group health
      • DESD does not have concalls and it's in their DMP. Does it have to be measured? They have been participating well on electronic votes after being threatened with having conference calls. Jean asks if the metric for whether they are getting their business done, then concalls may not be the only way. Austin notes that another agenda item today is the active role of monitoring projects, and re-assessing project scopes regularly. How would DESD do that by e-vote?
      • TSC concalls and participation in e-votes as a separate metric. SD concalls and e-votes participation are both measured for SD activity so DESD would be registered as having e-votes.
      • International Council chose not to participate. Should we measure them anyway? ACTION ITEM: Jean will talk to them about whether they should be measured.
      • Austin presents to them tomorrow morning, and he can offer this as an example of the measurement.
      • We can't assign a green supported group health for TSC until we know red/yellow/green for the other SDs.
      • FMG/FGB do not match up with many metrics. FGB has responsibility to provide governance to FMG regarding the FHIR exercise. Discussion of consolidation of governance will be in Ron's update. FMG doesn't necessarily feel they report to the FMG. ArB, FMG and FGB each don't have other groups they support, but only ArB has a seat on the TSC for measurement of participation.
      • Suggestion: zero is green, 1-2 is yellow, 3+ is red. The TSC would then overall supported group health be yellow.
      • Representation at TSC e-votes should be 85%. 75% is okay for calls. Conduct of concall/e-vote by SD is still >1.
      • What metrics would apply for FMG/FGB?
  3. Member Benefits - Chuck Jaffe (30 Mins)
    • User groups would be by domains, not geography, to be international and virtual.
    • Concern with user groups is that a User Group (UG) would want to develop standards, notes Austin. Ron notes that UG can contribute to conceptual requirements and validation of requirements are met. CJ says UG are also focused on implementation. RP says the users of standards are different from users of systems. Lorraine notes that RIMBAA is already a UG. How do BOF fit into the UG model. CJ notes this is an added forum, asynchronous, not at WGM. CB asks if this is a new type of member. CH says not a new type just new members, to reach out to those that have not typically participated, to step individual members from huge corporations in order to obtain those organizational memberships.
    • Member advantage webinars: e.g policy webinar had hundred of callers to hear a distinguished panel. Also hoped to grow participation from stakeholder groups. Caregivers effort unsuccessfully answered question "what's in it for me". Austin notes the last webinar was technically problematic; Chuck answered it was a Cisco problem.
    • Education platform: The new education portal is being rolled out, with the technical ability for online certification testing. It's still rolling out but they're using it this week notes Melva. Ken thinks it's great. Austin asks if the portal is members-only. Melva says there is tiered access.
    • Conformance Testing.


Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2013-09-21_TSC_WGM_Minutes&oldid=12201"