2015-01-17 TSC WGM Agenda

Jan 18, 2015 to Jan 23, 2015 - San Antonio, TX

TSC Saturday meeting for San Antonio WGM

Guests are asked to make alternate arrangements for the noon meal, or respect the opportunity for TSC members to dine first as the food provided is for elected TSC members and invited guests noted on the agenda

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location:		Date: 2015-01-17 Time: (quarter or hh:mm-hh:mm am/pm Timezone)
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne W.
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
?	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
?	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Vice Chair
?	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Freida Hall	HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
?	Stan Huff	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
?	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x	Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
?	Don Mon	HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
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
x	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
?	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Homework and Reference

1. SD Co-Chairs - Gather Help Desk feedback on support document and how well it worked since it was rolled out during September 2014 WGM
2. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
   • Welcome new TSC members
2. TSC Development - Hosted by Karen Van Hentenryck
3. Strategic Initiatives discussion

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

TSC Review and Planning

1. (30 minutes)Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
   1. Planning for Paris WGM
   2. Planning for September WGM - How to recover what was lost during Paris
2. (30 Minutes) Argonaut Project (Chuck Jaffe)
3. (15 Minutes) Mobile Health (Gora Data)
4. (15 Minutes)Review Project Scope Statement
   1. Are we requiring to much up front?
   2. Should there be a project update document after the Work Group has begun their work?

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

1. Help Desk Work Group Process review
   1. Reports from Steering Divisions regarding Work Group Experiences
      1. Doman Experts - Melva/John
      2. Foundation - Woody/Paul
      3. Structure/Semantic - Calvn/Pat
      4. Technical/Support - Freida/Andy
   2. Is the process working?
   3. Does the process need to be updated?
2. Product Family/Line discussion
   1. Next steps
3. TSC Project Review
4. Strategic Initiative Review

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Architecture and Tooling:

1. Tooling
2. (30 Minutes) Put together a plan for the role out of ballot naming convention for x WGMs (put reference to Calvin's document here)
   1. Criteria to determine success
   2. Plan for updates to the GOM
   3. Reduce the requirements in tht GOM in favor of ballot requirements document that is updated regularily by the TSC?
3. Formation of FHIR Core WG
   • Discussion regarding continued existence of FMG and FGB, and if so, to what purpose and in what structure?
   • Transition of FHIR governance group to product family/product line governance group
4. (15 Minutes) Review Open Issues List
5. Last 20 minutes - Follow-up with Karen

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

1. 30 minutes ARB/BAM
   • BAM update (Tony)
   • Product Family/Product Line (Mary Kay)
2. FHIR

Wednesday lunch

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

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

• Meeting started at 9:00 am. Ken introduced Karen Van Hentenryck who will be leading us through some teambuilding exercises this morning, at lunch, and Q4. Karen describes the team building process for the day and the purpose of adding some fun, learning about ourselves and each other. Ken hopes we can get to know each other a little better. Group introduced themselves with general background information. Karen introduced two of the activities and instructed the group. Group split into three groups for a castle building activity. Notable fact: spokespeople chosen by each group were each from Canada. Each team was given incomplete materials and had to come up with a strategy.
• Next activity: obstacle course. After completion, the group came up with obstacles for the TSC: 1)Board involvement 2)Time 3)Board too tactical/not strategic 4)lack of consistency 5)lack of member knowledge of what the TSC does 6)Apathy 7)TSC is viewed as an obstacle. Each member wrote what they contribute most to the group on a card and group was encouraged to consider how each member could contribute to mitigating the stated obstacles.
• Chuck Jaffe addressed the group regarding the Argonaut project. Purpose to raise funds to support FHIR. The name Argonaut came from the Jason report, Project is the name they decided upon that isn't the same as a traditional HL7 project definition. HL7 will dictate what gets done and how; the one element that is outside the purview is the parallel development of the security and authorization that will be led by Dixie Baker with HL7 members. HL7 HQ has not yet received any of the committed funds but that will be forthcoming shortly. Folks supporting the accelerated development have signed simple agreements to get things going. The work is not outside anything FHIR is going to do. Purpose is to have things balloted on time. Of the total, about 70% has been earmarked for subject matter experts doing the acceleration work. The balance goes to HL7. In addition other for-profit entities have expressed eagerness to be a part of the initiative and contribute funds. Other organizations will fund the FHIR.org website. Melva wants to understand how the people coming in to do the work will interact with the WGs. Chuck states that coordination would come from FMG. FMG has not yet been apprised of how the WGs and contractors will interact. The concern is that the WGs are not yet comfortable that the contractors will be actual subject matter experts in the individual domains. Chuck states that the biggest problem currently is communication between stakeholders and he has been assured that this will be addressed. Since content is to be completed by March the group wants the information soon. Upcoming meetings with Brett Marquard, Ken, and Chuck this week will provide an opportunity to sort out the communication issue. Prior messaging given to WGs indicated that WGs need to accomplish things by a certain date and if not the work would be done for them. This messaging created anxiety and the initial practice created more work for Pharmacy, for example. Chuck offers to receive questions from TSC members outside of this meeting and he will assist as he can. Ken proposes that the TSC must challenge the WGs to report whether things are working and if they're not they must use their processes to mitigate that. Chuck: the issue boils down to a chain of command within FHIR. Monday night we need to empower the WGs. Chuck came back later in the meeting to clarify after speaking to Grahame; Grahame states that WGs won't be usurped forcefully if the work isn't completed, but that help will be offered.
• Karen went over the decision making survey results she received and categorized each member of the group as a visionary (Ken, Pat and Andy), guardian (Paul), motivator (Giorgio, Lorraine and Jean Duteau), catalyst (Freida), and flexible (John Q., John R., Melva, and Anne). Anne will post descriptions in minutes.
• Ken updated on US Realm TF. EC has forward to the Board an intent to make the USRTF a board appointed committee, with Ed as chair and VCs would be CTO and TSC chair. The issues are that we have a GOM process for managing the committee and the appointees. Ed asked us to think about having a succession plan to have someone mentored into the group and groomed for leadership. The board will discuss on Tuesday. The current members will remain to help launch the group. One question is will the scope remain US Realm or will it be broader? The lack of a US affiliate means we really need this kind of group. Short term we believe the USRTF will operate as is under the TSC until the new group is chartered under the Board. Ken will discuss at the affiliate meeting tomorrow.
• Gora Datta was invited to discuss HL7's mobile health response and is there anything the TSC can do. Gora was unable to attend but Ken would like the TSC to think strategically about this; is there something we're not paying attention to that we're not? In Paris, Ken invited the local HL7 affiliates to come to discuss what's going on in Europe (Q1). Andy states that mobile health issues are entirely different than what we are used to. Difficult struggle between building apps and applying standards. We need implementers and mobile health folks to get involved/come to meetings. Time to market is much shorter for mobile health; we need to adjust our timelines. Ken summarizes that we want to hear from these folks contribute to the conversation in either May or September.
• Project Scope Statement discussion: There has been feedback that too much info is required for a PSS. Project services will look at essential information required for an "investigative project" - a new type of project that is in earlier stages. They would have two trimesters to upgrade to a full-fledged project or abandon it. Potential impacts to PBS metrics, ANSI timing. Approval process would still be the same. Plan is to do a scope statement and then complete the work through project services. If you want to ballot, it has to be a full PSS. It would be useful to do a refresher for people on the process to get something from project to ballot. September co-chair dinner would be a good time to do that. Project Services is doing a variety of things to get this information in front of people - five minutes videos, etc. Co-chair handbook needs to be formally announced. Discussion on where to best put co-chair resources on the website. In summary, we support the new type of PSS being explored.
• Paris: Monday night co-chair dinner will be Tuesday night after the Board meeting. Wednesday networking will move to Monday. European policy meetings will be on the front end. Schedule will be presented in general session on Monday; Melva will mail out to the TSC. Paul suggests bringing it up in division meetings to get a feel on how many plan to travel to Paris. Make sure there is co-chair coverage, even if you have to elect an acting co-chair. Saturday TSC meeting will occur and Ken is inviting local folks to share with the TSC. Giorgio explains the structure in Europe to Ken - Ken will revisit who should be invited to the meeting based on the discussion and will bring it up with the international affiliate meeting.
• Help desk/WG process review: Ken is disappointed with the data we can get from the Help desk software. Group agrees that this is not real call center software and associated data/statistics. Calvin states they only had two questions routed to his SD; all other SDs reflect no questions routed. Only four WGs chose to have a liaison other than the co-chairs managing the calls. Question arises that perhaps we haven't transferred the volume to the help desk; Tony, for example, is answering questions as he always has that don't go through the help desk. Discussion over benefit level to members. Numbers are low. Are answers to questions being added to the site so that it can be found by others? Averaging 5-6 questions per month. Does everyone in HQ know they should route questions to the help desk? In summary, volume is low but process seems to be working well. Ask the WGs to give us an estimate on questions they receive through other means than the help desk (listserve, email, phone, etc.).
• TSC Project review:
  • Project 1035: close project.
  • Project 1032: Extension of DSTU Comments site Functionality to Normative and Informative Standards: EST will review and report back to TSC. Mike was researching this and came back with questions to ES - he had several issues with the DSTU piece that were never answered. We will put this on the TSC agenda for 2015/02/09. DSTU site is for things that have been published. Publication cycle is different for FHIR. FHIR is having comments posted into Gforge which is different than the usual process. FHIR is getting daily changes to the specification. Could we use the same comment site for ballots and published items (i.e., HL7 work products)? Discussion over pros and cons of Gforge. DSTU comments site removes some of those barriers, such as account/password creation.
  • Project 996: There is a separate PSS created doing some similar work that supersedes this project. Freida will send out an email to Paul, John Roberts, and Pat to revisit this issue and determine status. Put on TSC agenda for 2015/02/09.
  • Project 916: PLA/BAM. Update program lead to be Mary Kay. Mary Kay will update on the project tomorrow.
  • Project 915: Update give tomorrow; work in progress.
  • Project 891: FHIR DSTU Ballot. This should be closed because the first DSTU ballot is complete? Ken to follow up with Dave Hamill re: what should happen to this one.
  • Project 890: TSC governance system for HL7 BAM: falls under PLA. Assign to Mary Kay.
  • Project 889: FHIR Program: This is the creation of FGB - project can be closed.
  • Project 809: Close.
  • Project 799: Strategic Initiatives Dashboard. Purpose was to align TSC with board's strategic initiatives. This particular project is obsolete. Close the project.
  • Project 763: SAIF IG. Have run out of time and will revisit on TSC call.
• Homework: What issues should TSC be thinking about?
  • Calvin's questions: 1)Profiling is becoming a larger part of our projects. IHE also does profiling. How do we manage the ability to socialize things in the community? Discussion: IHE WG will be coming in under T3SD and there are some concerns because their scope is not clear. Will they be creating profiles and balloting? If so, they may not fit under T3SD. Questions forwarded back and will be discussed on Monday night. Similar process has been gone through with DICOM. What is the background of the IHE WG and why the collaboration? The Board had a sense that the people in place were not the best collaborators so they sought out Todd to be a good navigator to bridge the gap between HL7 and IHE in a constructive process. They are also wanting to play a larger role in the Joint Initiatives Council (JIC). Ken states that we need to walk through where they fit in. Don't want them building messages. They should be collaborators rather than product deliverers. Need to figure out how we manage this and help drive it through the collaboration team. If they bring forward a PSS, they should be listed as a co-sponsor rather than the lead. 2)The CIMI work is likely to come back to us; if it does, it represents a level of detail that we haven't really dealt with. We need to consider what that might look like. What CIMI does: take a lab code and there is a CIMI model for it defining the ranges and units for that concept. Over 1,000 specific models. Different than what we're used to - we're used to general models. Tries to deal with different sources modeling the same concept differently - comes up with a base underlying normative way to deal with it. CIMI models could be used as reference models to improve quality of interoperability of any of our products. Do we want to proactively come up with a way of applying it? Also the issue of artifacts. FHIR is the catalyst but it should not be limited to that. Issue might be focused in a WG rather than TSC. Perhaps in Templates. CIMI may span both Templates and Clinical Statement? Paul: Templates should be creating the technology. Content should be in Domain Experts. Templates and FHIR Profiling needs to figure out the micro-content models and then the WGs that need to create those objects using those objects should be in the domain committees. Should start with Stan regarding his thoughts on how to react to/interact with this issue. This would be a good use of the new PSS-lite. Calvin will talk to Stan about it. Add to agenda for 2014-02-09. 3)Legacy standard support - people are drawn to new standards but that leaves a large portfolio of legacy that is losing attention. Should we assess healthiness and risks around our legacy standards? V2, C-CDA, etc. must keep moving forward despite later versions and FHIR. For example, V3 no longer has modelers. Increased difficulty maintaining editors for V2. Hans' standards maturity tool may help give us a view of this issue.
  • Jean's question: How do we discover what the WGs think the TSC does and how do we change a potentially negative viewpoint? TSC remains mysterious to most. Should have a refresher yearly on what all of the groups do, including ARB, etc. Ken will take on driving this effort. PLA could be a catalyst in bringing some of these issues up.