2017-09-09 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Saturday meeting for San Diego WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Palatine B		Date: 2017-09-09 Time: 9:00 AM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
Regrets	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
x	Freida Hall	Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x	Russ Hamm	HL7 FTSD Co-chair
?	Stan Huff	HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
?	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	SSD-SD Co-chair
Regrets	Wayne Kubick	HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x	Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x	Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
x	Melva Peters	HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x	John Roberts	HL7 DESD Co-chair
Regrets	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Sandra Stuart	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1 - 9 am to 10:30 am

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)

1. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda
2. TSC Chair Election open online reminder
3. HL7 Board Strategic Initiatives (Pat)
4. Essentialism
   • M&C Reviews

Q2 - 11 am to 12:30 pm

1. Essentialism (continued)

Q3 - 1:30 pm to 3 pm

1. FHIR Normative ballot issues
2. Ballot reconciliation sync project (Austin)
3. SGB update

Q4 - 3:30 pm to 5pm

1. Architecture and Tooling: preview Wayne's report
2. TSC Chair election results
3. Confirmation of CDAMG candidates

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

1. ArB
2. BAM
3. FHIR
   • SGB review of FHIR ballot level issues (resources that moved from draft in ballot to STU in publication) - Paul
   • FHIR naming issues - Calvin
4. Co-branding of standards

Wednesday lunch

1. Meet with GOC re: Considered for Future Use ballot disposition
2. Issues from Monday's Steering Division Meetings
3. HL7 Product roadmap

   (September) Review TSC SWOT

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - 9 am to 10:30 am

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
   • Pat Van Dyke here
   • Wayne not here until tomorrow night

1. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda
   • Agenda accepted

1. TSC Chair Election open online reminder
   • Ken confirms that everyone got the instructional email
2. HL7 Board Strategic Initiatives (Pat)
   • Pat presents strategic plan and goals from the Board. Categories include: 1) Enhance Image; 2) Organizational Vitality; 3) FHIR as Primary Standard; 4) Support HL7 Standards. Mission: To provide standards that empower global health data interoperability. Vision: A world in which everyone can securely access and use the right health data when and where they need it. Pat describes the thought process behind the development of each category. Group reviews objectives associated with each strategy.
     • Enhanced image: Expand image/perception from standards to solutions – Immediate (I). Improve relevance with key target audiences globally and establish/strengthen relationships with key stakeholders (Midterm – M). Enhance value of standards to target audiences globally (Later – L)
     • Organizational vitality: Protect existing revenue sources (I). Increase revenue from new partners and stakeholders (M). Pursue new revenue streams (L). Giorgio asks if internationalization could make an impact. Pat agrees that we need a more global focus and need to find more ways to engage the affiliates.
     • FHIR as Primary Standard: Ensure that the community at large understands that FHIR Is an HL7 product (I). Increase understanding of FHIR usage and value of usage worldwide (I). Demonstrate the value of FHIR in enabling interoperability (M). Ensure resources are most effectively focused to enhance FHIR (M).
     • Support HL7 Standards: Establish a strategic tooling plan to support the standards lifecycle (I). Increase efficiency and effectiveness of process and updating current standards (M). Improve accessibility (M). Lorraine notes that there is much work to be done with tooling.
     • Next need to establish actions for each of these, starting with the immediate goals. Ken wants the TSC to digest this and anticipate that there may be questions on Monday night. Pat notes that the full plan will include all details including responsibility assignments; this is a snapshot. Lorraine thanks Pat and the Board for their work on this.
3. Essentialism
   • SD presented the materials from their WGs and the TSC evaluated these across all SD. Detailed meeting notes taken and placed on the TSC wiki where the TSC Essentialism documents are being stored for Q1, Q2 and Q3 discussions.

Q2 - 11 am to 12:30 pm

1. Essentialism (continued)

Q3 - 1:30 pm to 3 pm

1. Essentialism, continued
2. FHIR Normative ballot issues
   • We had the R3 publication go out with anomalies between what levels artifacts were balloted vs. published at. Product director was asked to provide explanation. SGB reviewed the statement; statement only covered 2 of the 25 resources that were published differently than balloted (balloted draft, published STU). Paul went through and looked at getting dates on which the WGs approved the resources to be STU. Half of them have dates around the date of publication as opposed to when it went to ballot. Some were approved after publication. Some said they intended it to be STU but didn’t vote. Issue is physical and political. Materials are out there and published. The cost of not going forward exceeds that of pulling it back. Need to document what occurred and take our lesson from that. The exercise will further identify that this is a management issue, not a governance issue. The policies are in place but weren’t followed. No precept changes need to be made; policies need to be followed. TSC approved the publication before the final materials were ready. We did change our policy to state that we need time to review before publication occurs. SGB will recommend that there needs to be formally reporting of WG decisions to ballot at a certain level for FHIR. This happens on the NIB for other things but FHIR is different. Calvin: Do we need to establish a precept of how the NIB is used? So each committee would have to do a NIB for their FHIR Material. Lorraine: Current process is management groups don’t see the NIB. There was a NIB for FHIR as a whole stating they were doing a ballot that FMG submitted. Ken: First thing is that a single WG is responsible for the NIB, so if there are multiple cosponsors, they don’t manage or control it. But in FHIR the management group is responsible, as well as V2. The problem is when it is an aggregate good, such as in the case of FHIR. Ken wonders if we should use the V3 model. Calvin: Another possibility is to create a custom FHIR NIB listing the resources and approval dates of their intended level.
     • SGB will confirm the necessary steps that the different bodies need to do going forward. TSC needs to endorse that communicate to the management groups that they must do these things. Melva asserts that WGs are confused by the FHIR process.
3. SGB update
   • Anne to add link to slides here

Q4 - 3:30 pm to 5pm

1. TSC Chair election results
   • Karen reports that ballot results are that Austin received the most votes in the election. Pat verified the votes.
2. Ballot reconciliation sync project (Austin)
   • Austin displays report.
     • HL7 Essential requirements govern Normative, GOM governs everything else.
     • Two reconciliation tools in use: Spreadsheet and Gforge
     • People completing reconciliation may or may not be aware of the rules governing reconciliation. Some WGs allot anyone to reconcile, others only allow cochairs.
       • Recommendations:
       • Wait and see what happens as a result of the audit.
     • Request clarification from GOC on Review ballot reconciliation requirements for WGs – can a WG ignore submitted comments, leaving them without any disposition if the ballot passes? Paul: now that we have dispositions that can be used in various circumstances, we should be able to put that in the GOM.
     • Identify one group responsible for keeping all ballot reconciliation documentation in sync with HL7 ER/GOM
     • Train/certify those doing reconciliation on the process(es) and tooling used for reconciliation.
     • Update the ballot spreadsheet to reflect the current processes. If there are multiple ballot reconciliation processes, we should have specialized versions of the spreadsheet for each different process.
     • Future ballot tooling needs to enforce that people follow the correct process for each process we have.
     • As long as we use manual ballot spreadsheet process, we need to measure conformance with the process. Verify accurate Normative reconciliation for every pub request for Normative ballots. Audit a subset of review ballots that they properly follow that process. Identify appropriate processes for correcting reconciliation issues.
     • As long as reconciliation is a manual ballot spreadsheet process, we should make accurate ballot reconciliation a WGH measure
   • Open Questions
     • Mixed balloting: FHIR is going to attempt next year. With multiple manual reconciliation processes currently in place, can we expect all WGs to get this right?
   • TSC meeting Wednesday lunch with GOC regarding Considered for Future Use for ballot disposition.
   • Could implement immediately verifying appropriate ballot reconciliation on every Normative ballot publication request. Could also remind that they must use spreadsheet or tracker – no other options currently. Paul notes that there is a project evaluating balloting with Jira and yet another emerging idea to use Github.
   • Monday night we can say that we’re noticing inappropriate dispositions for what is allowable for that type of ballot. There will be training down the road but need those doing ballot reconciliation to refresh themselves on what is allowable. Cochairs should be present for reconciliation votes and bear the responsibility for applying the rules.
   • Discussion over how to manage relationship with GOC. GOC should only be editing our changes if they are in violation of an ANSI regulation. Ken states their response should be acceptance or rejection with reason. Paul will lead the discussion on Wednesday. GOC is board appointed; what is their decision making authority? If TSC has gone through a formal process to present it as a motion, their comments should come back to us.
   • Freida notes that she will be rolling off as TSC representative on GOC and there needs to be a new one.
3. Architecture and Tooling: preview Wayne's report
   • Wayne not present
   • ACTION: Add Architecture and Tooling to TSC Parking Lot
4. Confirmation of CDAMG candidates
   • Candidates: George Dixon, Brett Marquard, Rick Geimer, Lisa Nelson, Kai Heitmann, Jean Duteau, Dale Nelson. Missing payer perspective but will add later.
     • MOTION that SGB recommends that this slate comprise the initial CDAMG: Austin/John
     • VOTE: All in favor
     • These candidates will be invited to lunch on Thursday for informal meeting.
5. TSC Code of Conduct
   • Ken asks group to consider how to add something in responsibilities regarding everyone having a voice. Floyd notes that topic is covered in the first three bullets of community requirements.
     • Floyd suggests “Collaborates effectively and respectfully.”
     • ACTION: Add discussion/feedback to next conference call.
6. Ken notes that there may be an out of cycle ballot approval request right after we go back Paul thinks FM hasn’t approved yet.
   • Paul will research the issue and report back on Wednesday.
7. Updates to PSS – Freida
   • PSS will be updating order of approval. Discussion over order.
     • Need URLs for each family management group
8. Adjourned at 4:47 pm Eastern

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .