2009-10-26 TSC Call Minutes

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, October 26, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Agenda

Apologies

• Calvin Beebe
• Ioana Singureanu

Meeting Admin

Meeting Attendance - :

At	Name	Affiliation	Email Address
	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD	cbeebe@mayo.edu
x	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Alternate	woody@beelers.com
	Kevin Coonan	invited Guest, Patient Care WG	kevin.coonan@gmail.com
x	Bob Dolin	invited Guest, HL7 Chair-elect	BobDolin@gmail.com
	William Goossen	invited Guest, Patient Care WG	williamtfgoossen@cs.com
	Ed Hammond	HL7 Chair	hammo001@mc.duke.edu
	Charles Jaffe	HL7 CEO	cjaffe@HL7.org
x	Marc Koehn	invited Guest, HL7 EA IP PM	marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com
x	Austin Kreisler	HL7 DESD	austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x	Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ	lynn@hl7.org
x	Ken McCaslin	HL7 TSS SD	Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com
x	Charlie McCay (chair)	HL7 TSC Chair	charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk
x	Charlie Mead	HL7 ArB	Charlie.mead@booz.com
x	Ravi Natarajan	HL7 Affiliate	Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
	Ron Parker	HL7 ArB Alternate	rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca
x	John Quinn	HL7 CTO	jquinn@hl7.org
x	Gregg Seppala	HL7 SSD SD Alternate	gregg.seppala@va.gov
	Ioana Singureanu	HL7 FTSD	ioana@eversolve.com
x	Helen Stevens	HL7 TSS SD Alternate	helen.stevens@shaw.ca
x	Ed Tripp	HL7 DESD Alternate	Edward.tripp@estripp.com
	Karen Van Hentenryck	HL7 HQ	karenvan@HL7.org
	D. Mead Walker	invited Guest, HL7 FTSD Alternate-elect	dmead@comcast.net

1. Accept Agenda – Helen will proceed with M&C offline. No one from Patient Care on the line, Austin emailed them and will forward the response to the list serv. Agenda accepted

Guest discussion:

• DCM issues, see TSC Issue # 890, on Consistency of Clinical content and overlap. Austin will forward email to TSC listserv. Progress is slow but it is moving. Status of project scope and SAEAF engagement in the email.

Agenda continued

1. Approve Minutes from 2009-10-19_TSC_Call_Minutes – unanimously approved
2. Review action items –
   • Roadmap Strategic Initiatives review

     Strategic Initiatives - Current:

     • Expand, reinvigorate and streamline HL7’s production, processes and technologies
     • Evaluate HL7’s competitive environment and define HL7’s roles, positions and actions
     • Enhance communication and outreach: make HL7 more useable, useful and understandable and share the ideas worldwide
     • Embrace the Electronic Health Record (EHR)/Electronic Health Record System (EHR-S)/Personal Health Record (PHR) as the focal point of technical development of health informatics standards
     • Connect to the clinicians, an essential HL7 community

     Strategic Initiatives - Proposed:

     • Streamline the HL7 standards development process.
     • Facilitate HL7 standards adoption.
     • Define an overarching and internally consistent interoperability framework.
     • Ensure broad and encompassing stakeholder engagement in the standards development process.
     • Lead development of the technical and functional health informatics standards for electronic health records.
   • Bob Dolin described the new process for revising strategic initiatives to review with TSC and consensus before finalization. Will be reflected in next GOM cycle. Activities to drive business plan, funding, etc. To kick off the new process we’ll review the strategic initiatives, then the roadmap items. Review today and even next week, although going to the executive committee today will go to the Board next week. Ken feels this is a step in the right direction. Austin sees how many projects that couldn’t find a home in the old ones will find a place in this set. Woody ‘thirds’. Ken moves to accept; Austin seconds: Unanimously approved.

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

1. CEO Report – none available
2. CTO Report – john reviewed the attachment.
   • ISO/JIC/JWG update: suggestions on better wording or reference (see CTO report)
   • ArB review process: obtained review of GOM from Karen and will review with Charlie Mead and Ron Parker and have something next week.
3. ArB Report – kickoff meeting with joint project team (NCI and HL7 technical writing team) to coordinate efforts.
4. International Council Report – nothing to report. Ken Lunn sent emails on NHS stats. Helen asks if there will be follow up to Ken’s email? Will other affiliates provide similar information? Ravi will take an 'action item' to seek similar implementation reviews at the international level. May not be a TSC item, but more at the Board level? Ravi feels it’s part of the visibility project. Helen asks what motivated the email? Ravi will find out.
5. Domain Experts – Austin reported a couple votes underway for Mission and Charter updates, and a new project approval coming next week.
6. Foundation & Technology -
   • From 20091019: Project Approval: Security Domain Analysis Model scope statement at TSC Tracker # 1332.
     • Austin reports a question from Melvin Reynolds (cochair of Health Care Devices) that a note to relationship with ISO TC 215 work be cited. John agrees there is a lot of work on security and privacy going on at the US TAG we should be coordinating with. There was no response from the Work Group. Charlie McCay notes that Glenn Marshall was involved and would also be involved in the ISO work. However Melvin was not asking on behalf of Devices WG just as an individual; but Melvin should receive a response to his consideration.
     • Helen also had a comment; DAMs as informative document – ArB determined that DAMs should not be normative due to consistency of DAM content but could be normative at some point in the future. Helen asks if the project should include activities towards standards for DAMs. Abdul-Malik Shakir developed a draft guideline or style guide for DAMs the ArB is considering. Should the project be asked to follow this style guide? Charlie McCay reminds that we decided at the WGM that alpha projects would follow SAEAF guidelines but regular projects are not required to do anything out of the ordinary. Helen suggests the ArB offer the style guide to them.
     • Project unanimously approved.
   • MIF review for informative ballot. Not this week. Will do an e-vote.
   • For 20091026: Request for publication of DSTU for FTSD: Vocabulary - CTS R2, at TSC Tracker #1342 unanimously approved
7. Structure & Semantic Design -
   • e-Vote review: Approved 5/1/0 Project Proposal - HL7 Neonatal Care Report Implementation Guide at TSC Tracker # 1329
   • e-Vote review: Approved 5/0/1 Project Proposal - HL7 Procedure Note Implementation Guide at TSC Tracker # 1330
   • From 20091012: Request to publish Informative Document: Clinical Genomics V2 Fully LOINC-Qualified Genetic Variation Model R1 at TSC Tracker #1335 Unanimously approved
   • From 20091019: Extension of DSTU for Clinical Statement - Request approval- see TSC Tracker #1338; Helen asks if 24 months is required? Due to its continuing use and lack of resources on the WG this is probably accurate. Unanimously approved.
   • For 20091026: Publication Request for Informative Document: CDA Public Health Case Report IG at TSC Tracker #1341; Bob notes that the negatives were reconciled. Unanimously approved.
8. Technical & Support Services – Ken notes a project is coming for Online Presence with the ES WG.

(30 min) Discussion topics

• eVote Review - TSC Chair election: Charlie McCay as TSC Chair for 2010-2011 by vote of 6/0/0
• From 20091012: Project Approval: TSC Work Group Visibility Project 2009 - was approved by TSC as committee, sent to cochairs for review, now needs formal approval as a project - scope statement at TSC Tracker #997; unanimously approved
• Board recommendation: TSC to evaluate Research and Innovations Committee, background at [TSC Tracker #1320] - current format proposed is half-day workshop at 2010JanWGM
  • Room has been requested and noted on meeting brochure, in advance of TSC discussion. Helen asks if Ken, Linda and Jill will remain involved or just offering it to the board? Ken will run the workshop, on how to take the initiative forward most effectively. Not process innovations but in our standards. Woody fears it will imply we have not welcomed innovation in the past. What is appropriate maturity in item 4? Will it be balloting material? Charlie McCay notes they do not intend to ballot, more involvement in bringing project scope statements and socializing ideas. Some question on if something doesn’t find a home it doesn’t need one. Will not short-circuit the project approval process. It is modeled on innovations committees in other organizations. Ed suggests a more formalized handoff; at the appropriate stage in development the TSC might work with the committee to develop a project scope statement. Helen doesn’t hear it being a full committee; hash out in January how it will be manifested in the organization. We should include tooling publishing, MnM, steering divisions, PIC for our front runners on similar type work. Charlie McCay says serious objections should be voiced now, otherwise we’ll invite Ken and Linda to a future call to discuss next steps. It will be two quarters in Phoenix. Proposal broadly accepted. Helen might be interested in working with them on it.

Open Issues List

Review deferred from 20091012:

• TSC Tracker #1321: Next steps on WG not meeting at WGM
  • point of consideration - handbook specifies Work Group co-chairs are expected to attend at least every other WGM or be subject to removal; what expectation shall be made explicit for Work Groups?
  • If a WG has active projects but decides not to meet at a WGM they should be scrutinized. If they don’t have active projects they should be scrutinized on a whole different level. Ravi asks what level the bar should be set? Austin recounts the Work Groups in their SD that appear to be in good shape on paper are having problems and others with poor metrics doing productive work. Each Work Group should meet at each WGM. If they choose not to meet they need to inform the Steering Division. Austin asks what the impact is, if the cochairs can’t attend, what can they do about it? Helen asks why not do what the other WG do that elected interim cochairs. Charlie McCay says we can at least capture the reasons why they can’t meet, and perhaps track that with the work group health and address the issues. Helen would like to report on any work groups not meeting at the next WGM. Lynn will take that as an action item.
• TSC Tracker 1319, HL7 IPR, Patents, and Copyright Issues
  • Suggestion to have a place in the WGM for giving these some visibility. Mostly corridor discussions in the last WGM. Woody asks if there is still a legal affairs committee of the board. Ken thinks there is not, as example groups on LinkedIn using HL7 logo. Woody thinks that John and the lawyers have to work on it, John notes that Karen’s response from the lawyers was unclear. Woody asks does such a group need to be re-convened to help John, as he and Jane used to? Where is this activity focused at the Board level? Charlie McCay directs the discussion to John to take to the Board, but for the WGM a place where issues can be aired. Who will host it, Woody asks – need to have a background in the issues. Action item: John to take to the Board with Woody supporting.

For Review 20091026:

• HQ to explore cost of providing secretarial support to the WGs TSC tracker #745
  • Allocate resources to 'priority' projects - what are the standards?
    • See also Roadmap project at Project Insight # 395, Criteria for prioritizing new projects
    1. Work Group Health -
       • help the healthy (reward productivity) or
       • help the unhealthy (foster greater productivity)
    2. Strategic Priority -
       • Set a product strategy to determine strategic priority? Currently assigned to Charlie McCay and John Quinn see Roadmap project at Project Insight #413, Develop an updated HL7 Product Strategy
         • Will the TSC take this on?
       • Use the SAEAF Alpha project engagement to establish strategic priority (short-term)
    3. Roadmap alignment?
       • TSC needs to review Roadmap (see agenda above)
       • How will you measure 'alignment'? Strategic priority weighting factors, as in the example Project Prioritization Criteria?
• Need a proposal – John and Charlie McCay will discuss with Lynn on Friday.
• Technical issues for generating JIC ballots and implementing the standard by ISO/CEN customers. TSC Tracker # 1336
  • Woody indicates this has been addressed in Durham at the ISO meeting. Barring new information that it is not working now, it should be resolved. Can contact Lise to ensure that it can be closed.
• HL7 Activities with other SDOs - session at WGM TSC Tracker # 1337
  • Keep an eye out on the agenda for the WGM we’ll be fleshing that out.

Adjourned 12:01 PM