2016-04-18 TSC Call Agenda
Revision as of 14:49, 22 April 2016 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
TSC Agenda/Minutes
Standing Conference Calls
TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.
- GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
- For those without access to microphone/speakers:
- US: +1 (224)501-3318
- Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
- Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
- Access Code: 426-505-829
- GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
Meeting Info/Attendees
| HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: We will be using GTM microphone and speakers (VOIP) with GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829 |
Date: 2016-04-18 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Ken McCaslin | Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer | |
| Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented | yes/no | ||||||
| Chair/CTO | ArB | International Affiliate Rep | Ad-Hoc | ||||
| x | Ken McCaslin | x | Tony Julian | . | Jean Duteau | x | Austin Kreisler |
| x | Wayne Kubick | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Giorgio Cangioli | x | Freida Hall, GOM Expert |
| . | . | . | . | Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus | |||
| Domain Experts | Foundation and Technology | Structure and Semantic Design | Technical and Support Services | ||||
| . | Melva Peters | . | Russ Hamm | . | Calvin Beebe | x | Andy Stechishin |
| x | John Roberts | x | Paul Knapp | x | Gora Datta | x | Sandra Stuart |
| . | . | . | . | ||||
| ex officio | Invited Guests | Observers | HL7 Staff | ||||
| . | Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote | . | x | Michael Brody | x | Anne Wizauer | |
| . | Chuck Jaffe (CEO) |
. | . | . | obs2 | . |
|
| . | . | . | . | . | |||
Agenda
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Agenda review and approval -
- Approve Minutes of 2016-04-11 TSC Call Agenda
- Review action items –
- Followup on Project Approval request for the TSC project Revise Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications
- ARB to add to agenda
- Melva to report back on Anesthesia move to Health Care Devices
- Anne to check with Andrea regarding news blast options before the WGM (in relation to DSTU/STU topic)
- Followup on Project Approval request for the TSC project Revise Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications
- Approval Items from Last Week's e-Vote referred for discussion:
- Recirculation Request by the InM WG of the FTSD for HL7 Clinical Context Management Specification (CCOW) Version 1 at Project Insight 1164 and TSC Tracker 9806
- Referred by Wayne: I’m confused as to why we’d want to reaffirm something that we’ve been planning to Sunset.
- Recirculation Request by the InM WG of the FTSD for HL7 Clinical Context Management Specification (CCOW) Version 1 at Project Insight 1164 and TSC Tracker 9806
- Approval items for this week's e-vote:
- Updated 2016 PSS Template Review and Summary of Edits
- Normative Publication Request by the MnM WG of the FTSD of HL7 Version 3 Reference Information Model, Release 7 at Project Insight 363 and TSC Tracker 9827
- ARB PSS on Substantive Change - waiting for cosponsors
- DESD PSS - waiting for updates
- Discussion topics:
- Continued discussion of issues associated with moving from DSTU to STU
- Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
- Open Issues List
Minutes
- Housekeeping
- Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
- Michael Brody, new EHR co-chair. Wondering how to contact steering division. Will contact Gora after the call.
- Agenda review and approval -
- Agenda approved
- Approve Minutes of 2016-04-11 TSC Call Agenda
- Minutes accepted via general consent
- Review action items –
- Followup on Project Approval request for the TSC project Revise Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications
- ARB to add to agenda
- Add for next week
- ARB to add to agenda
- Melva to report back on Anesthesia move to Health Care Devices
- Add for next week
- Anne to check with Andrea regarding news blast options before the WGM (in relation to DSTU/STU topic)
- eNews will be this week and we will get an update in this issue. Gora states we should have something in paper in Montreal, even if it's the same message as what will appear in the eNews. Lorraine notes it should also be a co-chair dinner topic. Discussion on DSTUs asking for extension. Would we change the name? Lynn working on transition language for standards page that includes notification that both names will co-exist for some time. Freida states we would leave the old names and grandfather them in for previously balloted items. Discussion on whether name could be changed on a case by case basis; Ken asserts if it's balloted one way, it should stay that way until it is reballoted. John Roberts agrees. Decision that if someone wants to extend the time frame for their DSTU, we will not change the name and it will not be on a case by case basis. Discussion over number of DSTUs - there are 97 active DSTUs. Decision to go with original statement.
- Followup on Project Approval request for the TSC project Revise Process to Withdraw Protocol Specifications
- Approval Items from Last Week's e-Vote referred for discussion:
- Recirculation Request by the InM WG of the FTSD for HL7 Clinical Context Management Specification (CCOW) Version 1 at Project Insight 1164 and TSC Tracker 9806
- Referred by Wayne: I’m confused as to why we’d want to reaffirm something that we’ve been planning to Sunset.
- Wayne explains his question. Gives the idea that CCOW is still an active standard. Should include some kind of message that it's not going to be actively supported anymore. Is it necessary to recirculate? Paul: in order to be a standard that people can refer to, it has to be relifted every five years. Lynn: when a standard expires, it does cease to exist. Andy: there is a project discussing what to do. Wayne: something that was an active standard should not be taken away. Andy: we want it to remain as an active standard and the recirculation is to address the outstanding negative. Paul: intention is for this to be an active standard. Lorraine: it was proposed to be withdrawn but there wasn't support for that. Ken asks about monetary cost for ANSI accreditation. Ken doesn't think we need to resubmit it to ANSI for it to be listed as a standard. Lynn: ANSI requires that we reaffirm or withdraw it from ANSI. Then we would republish as a non-ANSI, HL7-only document. The outstanding negative is that somebody objected to reaffirming the standard saying it was no longer being used. The recirc allows the ballot pool to weigh in on whether or not they agree with the negative vote. Lynn suggests the recirculation should move forward to address that issue and determine whether or not it should be reaffirmed. Ken: the problem we have is that we don't have a legitimate process to move forward; the sunset people can use this as helpful guidance in the issues that need to be address. Ken proposes that we kick this down the road until we have good sunset processes in place. Wayne: it's about the distinction between reaffirm vs. withdrawal. There should be a middle ground between those two notions. CCOW is something that is still being used but we're not maintaining it. Andy states that it does fall under one of the three conditions of reaffirmation; errata should be published and the WG should maintain those things. A group of people do wish for reaffirmation and some don't. Freida: maybe we could republish it as Informative. Then it wouldn't be an ANSI document but there would be the capability to make changes. Lorraine: In V2 we keep our old stuff around and publish errata. Why can't we do the same with CCOW? Wayne: is there a WG supporting CCOW? Andy: Yes, InM is supporting it. Lorraine: InM are issuing the ballot. Tony: This content needs to be reaffirmed in order to obtain ANSI status and then we can make the decision to get rid of it later. Ken: strong sense that this should move forward.
- MOTION by Andy to move forward with the recirculation request. Second by Lorraine.
- VOTE: Wayne abstains. Remaining in favor.
- Wayne explains his question. Gives the idea that CCOW is still an active standard. Should include some kind of message that it's not going to be actively supported anymore. Is it necessary to recirculate? Paul: in order to be a standard that people can refer to, it has to be relifted every five years. Lynn: when a standard expires, it does cease to exist. Andy: there is a project discussing what to do. Wayne: something that was an active standard should not be taken away. Andy: we want it to remain as an active standard and the recirculation is to address the outstanding negative. Paul: intention is for this to be an active standard. Lorraine: it was proposed to be withdrawn but there wasn't support for that. Ken asks about monetary cost for ANSI accreditation. Ken doesn't think we need to resubmit it to ANSI for it to be listed as a standard. Lynn: ANSI requires that we reaffirm or withdraw it from ANSI. Then we would republish as a non-ANSI, HL7-only document. The outstanding negative is that somebody objected to reaffirming the standard saying it was no longer being used. The recirc allows the ballot pool to weigh in on whether or not they agree with the negative vote. Lynn suggests the recirculation should move forward to address that issue and determine whether or not it should be reaffirmed. Ken: the problem we have is that we don't have a legitimate process to move forward; the sunset people can use this as helpful guidance in the issues that need to be address. Ken proposes that we kick this down the road until we have good sunset processes in place. Wayne: it's about the distinction between reaffirm vs. withdrawal. There should be a middle ground between those two notions. CCOW is something that is still being used but we're not maintaining it. Andy states that it does fall under one of the three conditions of reaffirmation; errata should be published and the WG should maintain those things. A group of people do wish for reaffirmation and some don't. Freida: maybe we could republish it as Informative. Then it wouldn't be an ANSI document but there would be the capability to make changes. Lorraine: In V2 we keep our old stuff around and publish errata. Why can't we do the same with CCOW? Wayne: is there a WG supporting CCOW? Andy: Yes, InM is supporting it. Lorraine: InM are issuing the ballot. Tony: This content needs to be reaffirmed in order to obtain ANSI status and then we can make the decision to get rid of it later. Ken: strong sense that this should move forward.
- Referred by Wayne: I’m confused as to why we’d want to reaffirm something that we’ve been planning to Sunset.
- Recirculation Request by the InM WG of the FTSD for HL7 Clinical Context Management Specification (CCOW) Version 1 at Project Insight 1164 and TSC Tracker 9806
- Discussion topics:
- Continued discussion of issues associated with moving from DSTU to STU
- Lynn reports on HQ side of transition. 90,000 documents in a subdirectory of websites; 700 references will have to change. This is a significant effort. Ken: How long will it take? Lynn unable to give estimate but the goal is to have it done by September, although not positive that date is entirely reasonable. Ken asks for an update at WGM either Sunday or Wednesday lunch and perhaps once a month throughout the summer. Lynn agrees to do so.
- Agenda - Ken discusses changes to agenda format for weekly calls and WGMs. Taking out the governance and management headers and combining all issues.
- Continued discussion of issues associated with moving from DSTU to STU
- Adjourned at 11:59 AM Eastern
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserve
