Talk:ConCall-20070306

A comment on the size an composition of the DE subgroup. A number of these SIGS are implementation specific groups that are using existing content of the standard, with only an occasional request to add new material. It is these types of groups (and I think they are both valuable and needed) whose position within the organization needs to be evaluated from a structural standpoint. Do they, in fact, need committee status, or are they simply project groups. There are very large projects in HL7 that are not offical committees (clinical statement, terminfo) and seem to be progressing without the need for representation onthe TSC. These smaller SIGS are in many ways like them. This leads into the discussion of what characteristics define a TC or a SIG? Is what we are using now the right approach? What is the reason for the rapid expansion of SIGS over the past few years? It may be because they cannot get a place to meet at the WGM without official status as a TC or a SIG. If we move to a project based organizational strucutre then that approach will not work over the long term.