2017-02-06 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 22:39, 7 February 2017 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

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
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2017-MM-DD
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
Regrets Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian x Jean Duteau . Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus
x Wayne Kubick x Lorraine Constable . Giorgio Cangioli x Freida Hall, GOM Expert
. . . .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters . Russ Hamm . Calvin Beebe x Andy Stechishin
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Austin Kreisler x Sandra Stuart
. . . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .


. . . . .

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Agenda review and approval -
    • Approve Minutes of 2017-01-30 TSC Call Agenda
    • Upcoming DMP Reviews
  2. Review action items –
    • Wayne to attend PIC meeting regarding ownership of co-chair handbook updates and look at change request process
    • Anne to add W3C definition of interest group as discussion topic on next call.
      • Wayne will send out associated document for review
    • Calvin to send draft requirements for logging issues/comments across standards to Lloyd; Lloyd to return with combined requirements
    • "HL7 Guidance: Standards Privacy Assessment (SPA) Cookbook, Release 1"
      • Austin to take issue of encouraging vs. mandating a process to SGB
      • Anne to update the WG regarding removal of the word "cookbook" from the title and copy John and Melva
      • Freida to forward Project Services document for SGB review
    • SD Structure spreadsheet
      • SD co-chairs to look at individual WGs to let Jean know where to add Xs by Friday
      • Jean to reach out to publishing, FTSD, and FMG
  3. Approval Items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Project Approval Request by the Mobile Health WG of the SSD-SD for Mobile Health Application Interoperability Review at Project Insight 1203 and TSC Tracker 12747
      • Referred by SSD-SD:Has this project been waiting for TSC approval for over half a year?
      • Referred by DESD:
        • This project has an unusually large number of project facilitators. It might be less confusing and improve coordination if there were only one or two. This is labelled as an investigative project, normally meaning that a full PSS is an outcome, with a scope developed in the investigative project. This project seems to be complete in two cycles, with a white paper as the work product. Perhaps the white paper is to be the basis of one or more future projects? Would it be simpler to just make this a regular, albeit short, project with the white paper as the only deliverable? Or, perhaps add as a deliverable a PSS for the a future project, whose scope is to be determined by this investigative project? The following are inconsistent with an investigative project: 5.a. ballot type
        • The absence of any international participation in the project team is inconsistent with 6.b.Realm Universal. What makes this an International Realm project?
        • Is this "HL7 Version 2" or "vMR R 2" ? If the former, specify which of the v2.x standards is the basis for the implementation guide.
        • Should this have USRSC approval?
        • Also, there is a 2011 date mixed in with the 2017-8 dates in the project schedule section 3.e.
    • Referred by SSD-SD (applies to the three project listed below):This must of already been granted at least one extension. My recommendation is to grant a single 6 month extension for the purpose of CDS bringing this to a normative ballot
    • Informative Publication Request by the Clinical Genomics WG of the DESD for HL7 Domain Analysis Model: Clinical Sequencing at Project Insight 841 and TSC Tracker 12701
      • Referred by SSD-SD: Comments were submitted on this ballot, but there has been no reconciliation posted nor has there been any communication to the ballot pool.
      • Note from Anne: Lynn is following up with the project; they will reconcile and resubmit
  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 7-0-0 with DESD, ARB, Jean, T3SD, Freida, Griorgio, and SSD-SD voting:
  5. Approval items for this week:
  6. Discussion topics:
  7. Open Issues List/Parking Lot

Minutes

  • Housekeeping
    • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
      • No visitors
    • Agenda review and approval -
      • Add FHIR negative ballot items under discusion
    • Approve Minutes of 2017-01-30 TSC Call Agenda
      • MOTION to approve: Austin/Melva
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • Upcoming DMP Reviews
      • PIC is working on a change to the DMP process. There will be a general principles document with a separate section for exceptions. That work is in progress, so DMP reviews will be deferred until September as well as WG health metrics around DMPs.
        • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Sandy
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • ACTION: Ken to email cochairs with details
  • Review action items –
    • Wayne to attend PIC meeting regarding ownership of co-chair handbook updates and look at change request process
      • Add for next week. No PIC meeting has happened yet
    • Anne to add W3C definition of interest group as discussion topic on next call.
      • Complete
      • Wayne will send out associated document for review
        • Complete
    • Calvin to send draft requirements for logging issues/comments across standards to Lloyd; Lloyd to return with combined requirements
      • Complete
    • "HL7 Guidance: Standards Privacy Assessment (SPA) Cookbook, Release 1"
      • Austin to take issue of encouraging vs. mandating a process to SGB
        • Complete. Some revisions will be suggested before TSC approval. SGB will bring back recommendations on 2017-03-06 call.
      • Anne to update the WG regarding removal of the word "cookbook" from the title and copy John and Melva
        • Complete
      • Freida to forward Project Services document for SGB review
        • Complete. Austin will review in SGB.
    • SD Structure spreadsheet
      • SD co-chairs to look at individual WGs to let Jean know where to add Xs by Friday
      • Jean to reach out to publishing, FTSD, and FMG
        • Groups to finalize their comments by COB tomorrow.
        • ACTION: Anne to add to next week's agenda
  • Approval Items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Project Approval Request by the Mobile Health WG of the SSD-SD for Mobile Health Application Interoperability Review at Project Insight 1203 and TSC Tracker 12747
      • Referred by SSD-SD:Has this project been waiting for TSC approval for over half a year?
      • Referred by DESD:
        • This project has an unusually large number of project facilitators. It might be less confusing and improve coordination if there were only one or two. This is labelled as an investigative project, normally meaning that a full PSS is an outcome, with a scope developed in the investigative project. This project seems to be complete in two cycles, with a white paper as the work product. Perhaps the white paper is to be the basis of one or more future projects? Would it be simpler to just make this a regular, albeit short, project with the white paper as the only deliverable? Or, perhaps add as a deliverable a PSS for the a future project, whose scope is to be determined by this investigative project? The following are inconsistent with an investigative project: 5.a. ballot type
        • The absence of any international participation in the project team is inconsistent with 6.b.Realm Universal. What makes this an International Realm project?
        • Is this "HL7 Version 2" or "vMR R 2" ? If the former, specify which of the v2.x standards is the basis for the implementation guide.
        • Should this have USRSC approval?
        • Also, there is a 2011 date mixed in with the 2017-8 dates in the project schedule section 3.e.
          • ACTION: Anne to follow up on concerns
    • Referred by SSD-SD (applies to the three project listed below):This must of already been granted at least one extension. My recommendation is to grant a single 6 month extension for the purpose of CDS bringing this to a normative ballot
      • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Implementing the Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS), Release 1 at Project Insight 184 and TSC Tracker 12743
      • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Decision Support; Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Templates, Release 1 at Project Insight 1030 and TSC Tracker 12742
      • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Standard: Clinical Decision Support Knowledge Artifact Specification, Release 1, DSTU Release 1.3 at Project Insight 931 and TSC Tracker 12741
        • Discussion over how many times you can extend. If not cited in regulation, Austin suggests extending for 6 months for the purpose of bringing to Normative ballots. Freida notes that you can reopen something that expired, although GOC is looking at doing away with expirations.
        • MOTION to approve a 6 month extension for the purpose of bringing these three items back to ballot: Austin/Paul
        • VOTE: All in favor
    • Informative Publication Request by the Clinical Genomics WG of the DESD for HL7 Domain Analysis Model: Clinical Sequencing at Project Insight 841 and TSC Tracker 12701
      • Referred by SSD-SD: Comments were submitted on this ballot, but there has been no reconciliation posted nor has there been any communication to the ballot pool.
      • Note from Anne: Lynn is following up with the project; they will reconcile and resubmit
  • Approval items for this week:
  • Discussion topics:
    • TSC Mission and Charter
      • Tabled until next week
      • ACTION: Add to next week's agenda
    • Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      • Tabling due to upcoming changes to DMP update process
    • W3C definition of interest group
      • Group reviews definitions of working groups and interest groups. Freida: Would we put the things we have defined in the GOM into the interest group category: Wayne: We need to review what we have against this. We could define a new category of interest groups and then see how they fit in.
        • ACTION: Add to next week's agenda after group review
    • Ballot dispositions - FHIR DSTU 3
      • Lorraine: Two separate threads. The guidance given to WGs was that any ballot items that they couldn't get to were going to be marked considered for future use if they were affirmative, or marked not persuasive if they were negative and then categorize as deferred to deal with later. Paul: If it's a negative, you can't categorize it for future consideration, but the tooling allows it with no errors. Melva notes that the issue report that Lloyd sends out notes an issue if you do it that way. Paul has not had that same experience. What do we do because the tooling is not enforcing the GOM? How does it work when it transfers to the spreadsheet? Paul has sent through a notice to Lloyd that it is not supporting the GOM but has not heard back yet. Freida: More worried about the transition to normative ballot, which is when it will really matter. Discussion over reopening ballot items and tickets. Freida states that Karen suggested "not related" as a disposition. We just need to figure it out before the next round. Paul: Not crazy about the not related idea. If someone sends in a meaningful comment then that's inappropriate. Need some way to state that it's in scope, but we just can't do it now. Discussion over adding a new type of disposition status. Would need to be updated in the HL7 Essential Requirements.
        • ACTION: GOC to investigate adding a category for such items and come back with recommendation.
        • ACTION: Wayne to contact Lloyd regarding conforming to our current process regarding ballot reconciliation and check on tooling
    • Precept regarding Separation of Concerns from SGB: Paul/Austin
      • SGB has come up with draft precept that, where separation of concerns has been implemented, that individuals should only be a cochair in one of the groups. May want to grant exceptions, especially in methodology and management - how do we grant those? Is the TSC or the CTO the best place to bring those?
        • Andy suggests the TSC should decide. If the conflict involved TSC then it could go to the CTO.
        • Lorraine notes we should consider grandfathering existing roles. Wayne states yes, but with review first. Structured Docs will be coming up and having some of these issues.
        • SGB will continue to look at/address.
    • SD Structure Spreadsheet
  • Open Issues List/Parking Lot

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2017-02-06_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=18151"