Meeting-20080914

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:00 PM (US Pacific Time)

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

• CTO: John Quinn
• Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
• Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
• Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
• Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
• Affiliate: Frank Oemig,
• ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
• HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck

invited

• Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair); Ed Tripp (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009); Ravi Natarajan (newly elected TSC member to take office Jan. 2009)

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following individuals were in attendance: John Quinn, John Koisch, Calvin Beebe, Ken McCaslin, Woody Beeler, Frank Oemig, Ed Hammond, Jim Case, Jane Curry, Ravi, Gregg Seppala, Austin Kreisler, Ioana Singureanu, Helen Love, Charlie McCay, Charlie Mead and Karen Van Hentenryck
2. Continued discussion - Enterprise Architecture deliverable - J. Koisch reported that the ArB discussed the communication plan for this project. They've drafted a vision, talked about the timeline and milestones, stakeholders, socialization, etc. The ArB believes that the SAEAF reprents a framework that can yeild measurable efficiences in terms of the development and adoption of standards, He reviewed the timeline, which includes peer review and engagement of groups within HL7. They hope to release the slide desks to the co-chairs listserv. They feel that is a requirement for a set of out-of-cycle meetings between now and the Jan 2009 WGM. One needs to be a face-to-face, the other two can be virtual meetings (calls) for vetting/feedback. In Jan. they hope to deliver an impact and education, drafts to comments. Finalce the document at the May 2009 WGM. John reviewed the communication plan for the Sept WGM and the plans for the out-of-cycle meetings. One of these will be F2F, with the other two being virtual sessions to include community vetting/comment. In Jan. they hope to understand the organizational impact of this change, and should provide educational sessions. They believe several work groups will wish to to be early adopters of this work and there will be ArB outreach to those who are interested. Koisch noted that many of the TSC issues discussed yesterday might have a different answer given the enterprise architecture. For May, they will be looking at the re-organization of the work groups, and look at reconstituted ballots. Beeler feels that in Jan 2009, there should be meetings with MnM, publishing etc to determine how to deal with the current content (how to convert the current materail). The ArB has discussed having the SAEAF and other documents completed by early Nov. Mid to late Nov. is the appropriate date for the F2F meeting. McCay feels the TSC needs to take on the task of developing a presentation on this work. STakeholders include work groups, vendors, the larger community, other SDOs and contracting offices. The potential impacts include:
   • potential realignment of work groups
   • alignment of processesfor work products across specifications
   • quality critera for ballot participation and progression
   • Enhancement and refinemtn of conformance framework for V3 to incorporate SOA concerpts
   • Backwards compatibiity considerations of SAEAF principles on existing specs and work in progress. All impacts should be discussed if not dealt with by Jan. Beeler wishes to speed up adoption i.e., if things don't make sense stop doing them now. There was general consensus that the ArB should proceed with the Unified Field Theory and that is should become the HL7 architecture, not just the HSSP architecture. The TSC message should be that it is committed to moving to an enterprise architecture. Still looking at details but there will be change. The message must be based on the shared vision of the community. Beeler support rapid rather than early adoption. First communication shold be this is what we are doing, followed by the document and the full slide deck. The documents will be available withint the next two weeks. We will post the documents on the ArB wiki. We also need to generate a communications plans so people know what will be available when and what type of feedback we need and when, etc. The same message will be provided at the Monday evening co-chairs meeting and the Tuesday general session report from the TSC Chair or CTO. Two slides will be presented: the timeline slide and the table of which work groups this will be discussed with this week. If the TSC wishes to provide organization wide education, it should be announced tomorrow so that it can be planned. We may need to set aside a joint session in Jan (i.e., 1.5 hours at beginning of the day) ro review this or plan a joint session of INM, MnM, SOA etc on Wed afternoon at the Jan meeting. Of the two options, the Wednesday afternoon session is the preferred option, with the Monday morning 1.5 hour presetnation being the backup.
3. Timetable for socialization, review and endorsement
   1. 1. What documents need to be reviewed and approved, by whom, and when/how
      2. Benefits identification -- who is this good for, and how will we know the good is delivered
   2. Timetable for demonstrating, piloting, and rollout
      1. Organizational -- changes to committee structures and responsibilities
      2. Content -- what is the impact on those developing content
      3. Education -- who needs to learn what when, and how will that happen
      4. Tooling -- What changes to tools will be needed and when
      5. Adoption -- who will adopt and when
4. Roadmap, WG 3 year plans and SWOTs - The analyst will do much of this work. Once the Roadmap becomes available we will consolidate and make the appropriate connections getween the document.
5. Resource issues - Helen Stevens would like to professionalize the co-chairs. There is generally a lack of resources. It would also be good to provide administrative support to the work groups. McCay feels that we need to provide value. Love: Proposal: (a) train co-chair, (b) recruit secretaries for critical work groups. McCaslin feels that having multiple co-chairs is probably the only way to get scribes. Scribes wouldn't necessarily need to attend the WGMs as most of the work is done on conference calls. McCay feels we need to market better the value of engaging with HL7. ACTION: HQ to explore what it would take to provide secretarial support for 2 hours of every 1 hour conference call. Make co-chair training mandatory.
6. Project Template approvals - Based on project lifecycle. This will be pushed to vote on Tuesday.
7. Demos for tooling work n progress - Jane Curry introduced the topic. They invited open source tools vendors.
8. Legal right to use HL7 vocabulary in non-HL7 specifications - this will be moved to Tuesday's lunch. Independently designedcommerically available tools on one end and totoally open source use as is on the other end and everything in between. If they do thing again, tooling committee is being asked to investigate tools on one hand and on the other hand it should not be competing with its members. Real question is what is a vendor. We want supported tools. HL7's Board has had a long standing rule that there will be no vendor demos at its meetings. Charlie Mead indicated that NCI has had similar discussions but there isn't time to discuss it this evening. ACTION ITEM: This will be put on the issue list and should be resolved before the next WGM.
9. Charlie Mead - what is the role of formal analysis. This is an issue that either needs to be addressed by the ArB or taken on by the TSC.

Call adjourned at 8:06 pmPT

1. Agenda for Tuesday Lunch