2010-09-13 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:02, 20 September 2010 by Llaakso (talk | contribs) (moved 2010-09-13 TSC Call Agenda to 2010-09-13 TSC Call Minutes: minutes approved)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 124466#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2010-09-13
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie McCay Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Russ Hamm Vocab co-chair
x Patrick Loyd T3SD co-chair-elect


Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
  3. Approve Minutes of 2010-08-23_TSC_Call_Agenda, review notes of 2010-08-30_TSC_Call_Agenda (no quorum)
  4. Results of TSC elections published to list
    • Welcome new TSC Member-elects!
  5. Review action items –
    • #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin
    • #1576 - Work with Project services to draft a template for Project Communication plan: (Lynn) PSC proposes changes to existing artifacts rather than create a new document
    • #1573 - John Quinn: Identify actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on Roadmap subcommittee recommendations. See criteria
    • #1548 - From 2010-05-03: John and Charlie Mead will work on a one sheet overview of SAIF vs NIEM, reviewed by ArB with the HL7 position
  6. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  7. CTO Report - John Quinn
  8. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  9. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
    • the Int.Affliated group have provided the comments on the HL7 Strategic Intiatives documents as requested by Bob/Charlie.
  10. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  11. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
  12. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
  13. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
    • Deployment of Decision Making Practices: Motion:That the TSC expects all Workgroups to review the new DMP Template and Default and either reaffirm an updated version of their DMP (based on the Template) or accept that the DMP Default will take effect by May 1st 2011. PIC will produce a 1-pager that lists the substantive changes in the DMP and provide resources in Cambridge to assist committees as requested.
  14. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  15. WGM Planning -
    • Marketing and promotion - update from HQ -
    • TSC preparations -
      • Helen to review proposal by PIC on appointing interim co-chairs for WGs who are having difficulty confirming co-chair attendance at the Sydney WGM.
      • Motion: That TSC endorse the concept of an Acting Co-Chair with all the powers, privileges, and responsibilities of a Co-Chair for a specific period of time with no expectation of election.
    • Working Group preparations - agendas
      • Not planning to meet in Australia: Child Health, GAS (Anesthesiology)
  16. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  17. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1585 - ApproveProject Scope Statement for Innovations Project
        Approved in committee 8/23/2010. Motion: Approve Project.
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects:
        • Motion: accept guidelines as discussed on July 19th (having received no additional feedback for discussion)
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum
          • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
          The assumption with these criteria is that a project should be considered Realm specific unless it can meet the above criteria (or some acceptable subset).
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Project
    • ArB membership needs to be reviewed and re-confirmed biannually starting with this upcoming WGM...

Supporting Documents

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Russ Hamm available to talk about CTS2 extension.
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay –
    • Move CTS2 extension to top as well.
    • Move PIC motions to top of agenda
    • modified agenda approved by general consent
  3. Agenda
    • CTS2:
    • Deployment of Decision Making Practices:
      • Motion:That the TSC expects all Workgroups to review the new DMP Template and Default and either reaffirm an updated version of their DMP (based on the Template) or accept that the DMP Default will take effect by May 1st 2011. PIC will produce a 1-pager that lists the substantive changes in the DMP and provide resources in Cambridge to assist committees as requested. PIC will produce a 1-pager that lists the substantive changes in the DMP and provide resources in Cambridge to assist committees as requested.
      • This issue is also tracked at TSC Tracker # 1630.
      • discussion: still means that a WG cannot continue to use their old version, even if they review it against the new DMP. The WG needs an updated version of their DMP based on the new template. One thing that has changed is that each section is identified such as the GOM as well as consistent language for things like electronic voting. WGs are currently inconsistent on e-voting rules and some groups’ rules have loopholes. A WG can still have clauses in their existing DMPs that are not covered in the template, PIC would like to see them, and the WG can still use them. Austin notes that having a template will not prohibit Work Groups from customizing the DMPs. Helen notes that there are still committees that have unique processes. Charlie McCay notes what process is used for listing committees that have revised their DMPs. PIC will work with the committees and track as committees adopt their DMPs. PIC members can attend part of a quarter at a WGM, or a conference call, or review a WG’s DMP and make suggestions. Austin moves to instead make adoption of the updated DMP as a Work Group Health measure. CM notes that we expect all WG to be healthy. Austin notes that he (And Ed agrees) that they would vote against the motion if a default is to take effect that overrides existing DMPs. Helen suggests then that we change it TSC expects… or affirm that they will use the default, or starting in January 2012 it will be reported negatively on WG Health.
      • Revised motion: That the TSC expects all Workgroups to review the new DMP Template and Default and either reaffirm an updated version of their DMP (based on the Template) or accept the DMP Default. Starting January 2011 whether the WG has a DMP based on review of the updated template will be reflected on their WG Health.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
    • Ken joins
    • Acting co-chairs:
      • Helen to review proposal by PIC on appointing interim co-chairs for WGs who are having difficulty confirming co-chair attendance at the Sydney WGM.
      • Motion: That TSC endorse the concept of an Acting Co-Chair with all the powers, privileges, and responsibilities of a Co-Chair for a specific period of time with no expectation of election.
      • Operationalizing this might take a change to the GOM, asks Austin? Helen notes the GOM allows for a committee to make a motion to do this, and it was used for Kyoto but more informally. This way committees will know in Cambridge what they need to do to accommodate attendance in Sydney.
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Helen leaves, noting that ORC has not met.
  4. Approve Minutes of 2010-08-23_TSC_Call_Agenda, review notes of 2010-08-30_TSC_Call_Agenda (no quorum)
    • Gregg notes he was in attendance at both calls.
    • Vote: Amended minutes approved unanimously
  5. Results of TSC elections published to list
    • Welcome new TSC Member-elects! Patrick identifies himself on the call
      • Thanks to Helen, Mead and Ravi for their continued service through the rest of the calendar year.
  6. Review action items –
    • #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin – Ken still needs to work on that.
    • #1576 - Work with Project services to draft a template for Project Communication plan: (Lynn) PSC proposes changes to existing artifacts rather than create a new document; close tracker item as a new document will not be created.
    • #1573 - John Quinn: Identify actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on Roadmap subcommittee recommendations. See criteria – submitted comments thus far to Bob, he has suspended Roadmap Committee group activity until the V2/V3 task force report is available. Revisit after WGM. (suspended)
    • #1548 - From 2010-05-03: John and Charlie Mead will work on a one sheet overview of SAIF vs NIEM, reviewed by ArB with the HL7 position. On hold pending input from ONC on NIEM. Development work in SAIF continues.
  7. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – not available
  8. CTO Report - John Quinn
    • Booth at Medinfo in South Africa, Chuck and Bob are there. Nothing to report yet on ONC and Vocab subcommittee.
  9. ArB Report – not available
  10. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
    • the Int.Affliated group have provided the comments on the HL7 Strategic Initiatives documents as requested by Bob/Charlie.
  11. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler – see criteria for universal projects later in agenda.
  12. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler; See CTS2 request earlier in agenda
  13. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
    • Motion: to approve request for (re) publication of DSTU for Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2.0, Personal Healthcare Monitoring Report (PHMR), (International Realm) Draft Standard for Trial Use, Release 2, for 24 months. See TSC Tracker # 1632, Project Insight #209
      • Technical feedback from original DSTU that needed to be updated
      • Vote:' unanimously approved
    • Motion: to approve Project Scope Statement for Orders & Observations WG Microbiology Antibiotic Sensitivity Result Template; See TSC Tracker # 1634, or Project Insight #586
      • still working on clarifications on whether this is universal realm scope.
      • Patrick notes we can hold off another week to allow OO to review realm. Motion tabled.
    • Calvin leaves.
  14. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin nothing further
  15. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  16. WGM Planning -
    • Marketing and promotion - update from HQ – registration at 420 to date
    • TSC preparations -
    • Working Group preparations - agendas
      • Not planning to meet in Australia: Child Health, GAS (Anesthesiology)
      • Probably a number of unknowns. Will be following up in Cambridge. Canadian contingent do not yet know if they can attend Sydney.
  17. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens – no report
  18. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1585 - ApproveProject Scope Statement for Innovations Project
        Approved in committee 8/23/2010. Motion: Approve Project.
      • No feedback was received during distribution
      • Review: Formalize the innovations process and tracking mechanisms. Ken notes we’re proposing this innovations process outside of actual work groups outside of traditional project needs. Are there funds to support this process? Ed is not aware of any. Ken asks how an innovative idea gets executed without someone to fund the activity? Currently CM notes projects create products on informative or normative tracks, etc. This is for exploratory track work not seeking consensus endorsement. Ken applauds the concept, and understands the intent but sees that companies that put discretionary funding in place to see that such projects once vetted become successful. Otherwise it fails miserably because they can’t afford to fund these great ideas, resulting in frustration. Ed agrees that he has seen creative concept generation processes fail when there’s nothing to move them forward. Ken fears we may lose goodwill. CM notes we should address that issue in the design process. If we don’t believe it’s possible to design a process that addresses the issue we might strike it down. Ken asks if we need to bring to the EC? Woody notes that some projects that have come in that are not clearly defined but need time to bring out the details but if you ask for funding up front it will be shut down. He sites XGML working on XML implementation as an example. Ed notes it must have an understanding that if it is expected to bring benefit to the organization then there must be a streamlined process to request the resources (funding) to do it. CM notes that some ideas that have come forward have come with their own resources. Ravi asks what form funding takes, $$ or effort? Ed notes it might be purchasing a piece of software. Helen notes support rather than funding might be better terminology e.g. sponsorship. Woody notes we can proceed with this project as a pilot project and see how they address the support issue.
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Helen rejoins the call.
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects:
        • Motion: accept guidelines as discussed on July 19th (having received no additional feedback for discussion)
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum
          • Requirements coming from a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Project will be implemented in a minimum of 2 Realms
          • Minimum of 2 Realms represented on project team
          The assumption with these criteria is that a project should be considered Realm specific unless it can meet the above criteria (or some acceptable subset).
        • discussed on earlier call – arose when members of Domain Experts asked for guidelines. Looking for recognition that these are appropriate guidelines or some subset. If they can’t meet a subset (not defining what that subset is) they should not be Universal. Say, 2 or 3 of the criteria, maybe not all four. These guidelines then can go back to the Steering Division for reference. Ed notes the third one on implementation in two realms would be difficult for some projects. 2 of the other three requirements should be met. Ravi wishes to bounce this off the affiliates’ list.
        • defer to after international list feedback for next week’s TSC call. Motion tabled one week.

Remainder of business deferred.

Adjourned 12:04 PM.


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-09-13_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=6987"