Meeting-20080913

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Saturday, September 13, 2008 9:00 AM (US Pacific Time)
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

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 present: Charlie McCay, John Koisch, Jim Case, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Austin Kreisler, Ken McCaslin, John Quinn, Jane Curry, Chuck Meyer, Karen Van Hentenryck Calvin Beebe, Frank Oemig, Ed Hammond, Freida Hall, Dave Hamill (Q4).
   2. How well is the TSC functioning – Charlie McCay asked the TSC members for feedback on how they feel the TSC is functioning. He feels that the group been effective with the reactive and day-to-day issues, but less effective with planning issues. He noted there is good attendance at conference calls but observed that not much work is being done via the listserv between calls. Several methods were discussed for increasing the effectiveness of the TSC. Decision: The TSC will do the more routine voting via listserv (eVoting) and use the calls for planning/strategic issues. ACTION ITEM: The process will be worked out off-line.
   3. Agenda review:
      • Getting new TSC members up to speed - There were questions regarding how the new TSC members will be brought up to speed. Van Hentenryck noted that they were invited to join the TSC meetings in Vancouver. They will also be added to the TSC list and encouraged to participate in the weekly calls to be brought up to speed.
      • Laboratory Work Group – Austin Kreisler indicated that the Lab group is challenged and they are discussing what needs to be done. Co-chairs being laid off and/or re-directed and not able to do their work. The Work Group members are also unable to participate as needed. There is also dissolution of WG volunteers and the issues should be discussed.
      • Dissolution of volunteer resources - Singurenau requested a brief discussion regarding the possibility of WGs being supported by administrative staff.
2. Q1 – Review Issues Log
   • 319 – This is still an issue and will remain open. We are about to violate our principles RE backwards compatibility. ACTION ITEM: Quinn will lead a task force to deal with this issue. Hot Topic scheduling for MnM will occur on Sunday, Q3. Quinn feels this should be resolved by next meeting, with INM, MNM, ITS, publications veing involved in the solution. Issues and potential solutions should be identified this week.
   • 321 – Still open. This issue will be expired if the item is not resolved by Jan 2009.
   • 322 – This is a ballot issue that is still open.
   • 323 – Jane Curry is working on tooling proposal. Implications from the tooling proposal will be considered when dealing with this issue. Once the tooling proposal is complete, the T3SD will develop appropriate polcity. To clarify, this issue is related to Work Group collaboration tools, not ballot preparation tools. ACTION ITEM: Electronic Services Work Group will make a recommendation by January 2009 meeting. Now that the wiki resides on the HL7 server, the mandate to move things to web site is less critical.
   • Close.
   • 329 – Close.
   • 332 – This is still an open issue. HL7 completed work is submitted to ISO. This is outside JIC work. If work needs to be modified to be an international standard, then it needs to go to JIC. ACTION ITEMS: Hammond will provide the template; Quinn will update the document that is available online and then we’ll close this item.
   • 339 – Close.
   • 382 – This item will be closed when PIC releases its generic updated DMPs.
   • 383 - Close. INM has a task force dealing with this item. The issue is whether fields length should be normative.
   • 388 – Wilfred Bonney is working on updating GForge. When that update is complete, Wilfred will make the requested changes.
   • 400 – Close and refer to Affiliate council.
   • 401 – Close. This issues has been assigned to a Board task force. Another issue has bubbled up regarding vocabulary. Currently, there is no method for binding vocabulary. The HITSP Foundation work group is considering petition to become a Work Group and balloting vocabulary bindings as informative documents. This issue is specifically related to how the US deals with its vocabulary.
   • 405 – Close. ACTION ITEM: HQ will create a database similar to the V2 and CDA databases proposal databases.
   • 410 – This is being dealt with, short term, by the contract with Ted Klein and Russ Hamm. The chronic problem remains. Short term we may wish to have a contract with Ted/Russ to address this. Long term, this will be solved by the appropriate tooling. The issue will be considered resolved and closed when the chronic problem is addressed.
   • 457 – Still open and will be discussed in Q4.
   • 586 - Need check box and text box on the project form to indicated standards that break backwards compatibility rules. The explanation should be entered on the project form and carried over to the ballot document.
   • 587 – Still opened but should be closed when Don completes this.
   • 588 – Still open.
   • 589 – Still open.
   • 590 – Still open.
   • 591 – Still open.
   • 592 – Close.
   • 593 – Still open.
   • 596 – Still open. ACTION ITEM: Beebe to make recommendation.
   • 597 – Still open.
   • 611 – Close.
3. Q2 – Roadmap Review - Hammond provided a brief overview/history on the Roadmap document. The Roadmap document was originally much longer. but over the course of several months, we’ve collapsed several issues and now have a spreadsheet of tasks that can be sorted and will be tracked. Hammond noted that the tasks must be clear enough that the person responsible for the tasks understands what need to be accomplished and what the deliverable is. Staff has developed a process to track the tasks and vet and disposition the suggestions. Hammond noted that the EHR WG, for example, gave us great detail regarding what needs to be done from their perspective. We collapsed many of those details into a single task on the Roadmap and pushed the details back to the WGs. Estimated dates have been assigned to each task, and the TSC should review the overall plan and those tasks for which it has responsibility. Jaffe wanted the TSC to review the document first before it was opened up to the rest of the co-chairs. Quinn has estimated, from his perspective, the resources, (both time and $) required to accomplish the tasks, but the TSC may WGs may have different estimates. Quinn also noted that the Roadmap tasks will compete with other work that needs to be done in the WGs. Beeler suggested that the TSC scope its discussion so that it doesn't get mired in the details. McCay observed that the document was distributed to the TSC a couple of weeks ago, but not many TSC members commented on this document. This was not due to lack of interest but because they were asked to comment during a particularly busy time. General comments were as follows:
   • Kreisler - He doesn’t see the connection between the Roadmap and what 90% of the WGs are working on. Quinn and Hammond responded that including detailed Work Group plans in the Roadmap is inappropriate. The Work Groups' three-year plans need to be matched with the Roadmap plan.
   • McCay - The Roadmap does not summarize what the organization is doing, but represents areas that need change. He would like the purpose of the Roadmap clearly documented--what will it be used for? If the purpose of the document is to communicate with outside stakeholders and inform them of the changes coming down the road, this is good. If the purpose of the document is to inform the organization, it will not be particularly effective.
   • Singureanu - The document is a mix of tactical and strategic tasks.
   • Beeler - All details regarding Work Group projects can be represented by the five strategies.
   • Kreisler - The purpose of the document must be clearly articulated as the co-chairs will have the same comments on the tasks that the TSC had.
   • Stevens Love - The task list is not a communications plan but the high level strategies are. ACTION ITEM: The strategies and task list documents will be updated to clearly articulate their intended use.
   • HL7 is moving into the intra organization space–that is the big shift represented by V3. From a marketing/communications perspective this is important. Strategy 4 represents a major shift in how Work Groups are presenting their work. Also, the strategy is represented such to imply that EHR and PHR are the same. ACTION ITEM: Correct PHR as it currently refers to personal health records and public health record. ACTION ITEM: TSC will draft a document that articulates what the Roadmap means to the TSC and Work Groups.
   • McCay - The Roadmap should summarize what the organization is going to be working on in the next three years.
   • Beeler - Suggested that the TSC ask if the Work Groups are doing work that supports the strategies. If they are engaged in work that doesn't support the strategies, the TSC may need to intervene.
   • Strategy 1 Comments
     • Beeler thinks technical architecture needs to be added.
     • Stevens Love would like examples to be clearly identified as examples and ensure people know this is not a definitive list
     • Case didn’t see a strategy that looks at structure of organization and makes appropriate change (continuous process improvement). He suggested adding a sub bullet under this strategy to address this.
     • Stevens-Love feels strategy 1.4 belongs in strategy 4. Others felt this point was trying to address the technical architecture and if so belongs where it is.
     • Stevens Love suggested that we add the word “products” to the end of strategy 1
   • Strategy 2 Comments
     • Beeler would like strategy 2.4 to explicitly mention CEN
     • Strategies 2.3 and 2.4 should be worded simularly. The title should use the term SDO
     • McCay suggested that this strategy be explicit about US, international, and other other regions.
     • McCaslin questioned the strategy document as it contains tactical elements and suggested that the the strategies focus on relationships and the task list focus on tactical elemets.
     • Stevens Loves suggested that this strategy speak to two distinct perspective, one is US and the other is International.
     • Oemig observed that the strategies mention SDOs and other organizationss. He suggested these be divided by international and affiliate basis. The by affiliate basis items should be listed elsewhere.
     • Beeler suggests moving the international perspective to item 3. He will add this comment via the comment site.
     • McCaslin fears the document is US centric and thus he agrees with Woody’s comment.
   • Strategy 3 Comments
     • Beeler suggested that implementation tools be mentioned in this strategy
   • Strategy 4 Comments– Have already talked about this strategy at length
   • Strategy 5 Comments
     • Beeler suggested broadening this strategy to include scientists in addition to clinicians.
4. Q3 – Tooling/ArB Work
   • Discussion on ArB work around enterprise architecture and SOA - John Koisch provided an updatem on this project based on the attached slide deck. A full report on the three jumpstart meetings and their outcome is available on the ArB wiki site. [1] The TSC asked the ARB to develop a Unified Field Theory and this is their answer to that request. We will set aside an hour on Sunday evening to discuss this further.
   • Update on tooling initiative/next steps - Jane Curry provided a report on the tooling initiative based on the attached slide deck [2]
5. Q4 – Project/Work Group Management
   • Work Group health metrics - McCay opened the discussion by indicating the need to get measurements on the health of projects. Singureanu asked how important is it to monitor progress of groups vs. projects? Stevens Love noted that the health of projects reflects the health of the group; an unhealthy group could report on projects that are healthy. Kreisler reviewed the the Domain Experts Work Group participation stats. ACTION ITEM: HQ to report back on number of conference calls scheduled and activated (i.e. used by the WG). ACTION ITEM: TSC Analyst to provide WG statics similar to those provided by Kreisler and Beebe before each WGM. HQ will document the source of the figures as the group had a lot of questions of the source of the stats HQ published a month or so ago. This reporting will help the TSC understand which Work Group are active vs relatively inactive. Case suggested that the TSC address the Work Groups whose stats indicate that they should be disbanded. Then address the Work Groups that don’t have projects. He asked whether active Work Groups (supported by the stats)that have no projects should be folded into another work group. Beebe drafted a similar metrics chart for the Structure and Semantic Design Steering Division. The data indicates that some Work Groups aren’t meeting much, and one of these Work Groups is considering disbanding or folding into another. Stevens-Love suggested that the Steering Division co-chair communicate to the Work Groups that the TSC will be compiling the statistics for each Work Group and publishling them to the entire membership. She further suggested a prize for the healthiest committee (this doesn’t mean the most active, perhaps a letter to their employer stating their accomplishment, a ribbon, announcement at WGM. ACTION ITEM: For the next cycle, the report will be based on the set of data used in Kreisler's report.
   • SWOT / 3-Year Plans - Beeler suggested that the TSC Analyst review all the SWOTs to find common themes, especially in the Threats and Opportunities, and review the 3-year strategic plans. There was a vast difference in detail between WG 3-year plans. The more detailed ones were less helpful. Hammond feels strongly that there must be visible evidence that the TSC/HL7 is doing something meaningful with thisinformation. ACTION ITEM: Send email to the WG list including the URL where they can find the SWOT and 3-Year plan documents. The actual documents that contain the SWOT and 3-Year plan can reside in Gforge, Wiki, Work Group Web Site page. ACTION ITEM: McCaslin will follow up with Mike Kingery about making modifications to the Work Group site pages to indicate the location of Working Group’s meeting minutes, documents, etc. ACTION ITEM: SD Co-chairs should send a request to Wilfred Bonney to create a Gforge site for their Steering Division. ACTION ITEM: Mike Kingery will create web pages for each Steering Division.
   • HDF – Ioana Singureanu reported that the HDF did not go to ballot but several changes have been made to the document. Updates have been posted on Gforge and several chapters will be ready for review next week. She is uncertain how the HDF intersects with the ArB work. Quinn noted that what is eventually decided with respect to Tooling will impact the content of the HDF. McCay was hoping that the rollout plan for the ArB work would address these types of issues. There are other areas, such as user tools for creating IG, that will need to be addressed. How does this relate to the HSSP process? Singureanu noted that they reference this in the annexes. The two change control processes may or may not be the same. HSSP is a DSTU document so there is opportunity for comment and review. TermInfo is also a DSTU and has a Gforge site.
   • New Business
     • Beebe noted that the Clinical Genomics Work Group presented and received steering division approval for a project change to address the HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Clinical Genomics; Fully LOINC-Qualified Genetic Variation Model, Release 1
     • Hammond noted that PIC has a second iteration of the DMP and we need to decide which group, Board or TSC, will approve this second iteration. Decision: There was consensus that the TSC should review and approve the document.
     • The Project Templates discussion/approval will be addressed Sunday evening.
   1. • • The Mirth tooling issues will be addressed Sunday evening.

Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm PT