Difference between revisions of "2010-05-15 TSC WGM Agenda"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 222: Line 222:
  
 
#Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 
#Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 +
#* see attendance
 
#Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
 
#Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
 +
#* In future will have others’ names on agenda items, members must take ownership of items or they won’t have priority on the agenda.
 +
#*Need reports back on items requested, written offline. Just a couple of lines, not a verbal update; post to the wiki directly, email the list or Lynn.
 +
#*Gerald asks if we are Tweeting using tags?  Rene reports they have been using WGM2010
 +
#*Jane asks when are the reports due?  By Friday 9 am Eastern time for the leadership planning call.
 +
#*Helen suggests the agenda include questions or comments from the membership on the reports.
 +
#*Charlie suggests to add if video or audio recording and documenting of proceedings; disclosure that recording is occurring is needed. Rene suggests it be added to the DMPs. Helen reports that the DMP is being revised now and can be addressed. Will it be with advance permission or notice?  Defer conversation to PIC.
 +
#*Charlie asks to add discussion of future agenda discussion for the remainder of the week and messages for the cochairs meeting, etc.
 
#Roadmap discussion
 
#Roadmap discussion
−
#HL7 Quality Plan
+
#*Last WGM the TSC created SMART objectives.  Roadmap committee reviewed them and created Subgroups tasked to work on individual initiatives.  There is no comprehensive reporting back from the subgroups at this time. Who will take the lead to report back on these roadmap discussions? They will meet Wednesday morning. Need someone to bring out the actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on those recommendations.  John volunteers to work with Lynn and Karen on these.
 +
#**Jane suggests we also determine when we expect to hear back.  Later this week or after the Board retreat?  John will report back on the next conference call after the Roadmap committee meets this week. Ravi asks what are the deliverables and process. Need to have those initiatives identified by the Roadmap committee provide communication of expected delivery.
 +
#*Ken thinks we need a page of definitions of what the Roadmap is about to clearly outline the goal of the Roadmap.  Helen agrees and thinks the Roadmap committee needs a communications plan to the membership. Ravi notes we have worked on product and project visibility but the Roadmap does not have this visibility. Ken had started a drawing to describe them but ended up identifying tactical elements among the strategies. Need also to have marketing council wrap around that and put something out there. Noted to John, our liaison to the Roadmap committee.
 +
#[[HL7 Quality Plan]]
 +
#*John reports we’ve discussed it a few times, Woody came up with something for January. Our progress report so far is one slide with not much to report.
 +
#*Austin wrote an article for technical newsletter
 +
#*Woody added wiki page for [[Quality Analysis in Ballot]] to find things that cause failures in validation, and included the ballot quality reports automatically as part of TOC for each ballot. This is the publishing effort, there are other efforts in tooling, and John will incorporate into his report.
 +
#*Austin notes from his article several elements from Woody’s report as well as concerns on reconciliation. He notes there are quality processes involved with SAIF that were not written into his article. Charlie thinks we need a project scope document for producing the quality plan, and Austin volunteers to lead the project.  Need the scope statement and the responsibility is shared by TSC and CTO. ACTION ITEM: Austin will draft one and run it past John. When? Should we discuss again Tuesday lunch? 
 +
#*Is the product and services strategy part of the quality plan?  It should be separate.
 +
#*Woody suggests change to the GOM to cast negative votes other than through the ballot pool (by foundation or methodology groups). Helen asks are we authorizing individuals or the cochairs of groups, or as a committee vote?  Woody suggests key representatives of a set of foundation groups they would collectively vote as a consensus as a single vote? Is ‘balloting’ the quality plan or will there be other quality checks upstream, asks Austin. Helen notes if a group doesn’t know they have a quality problem, or do not pay attention to the quality factors. The tooling and automated QA in publishing’s work to bring those out will provide upstream quality checks. John reports technical issues when the ballot workbench is backed up the day before the ballot close falsely showing ballot problems.
 +
#**Mandarins in this case are the facilitators in every domain are supposed to participate in a formally defined publishing process and the negative votes might be cast against those whose facilitators do not participate. Ann fears innovative efforts might get stomped on before they reach DSTU. Woody notes that problems are more about a DSTU that has been out for 18 months and has never successfully had a schema validated against it.  Helen notes these situations should have a plan with dated milestones to fix it rather than just a negative vote on the ballot. TSC should have the power to ‘take our name off’ a product.
 +
#*Ed notes problems where the issuer of a ballot that notes during reconciliation that something would be fixed but it was not fixed. Should they note where the fix is included in the ballot before it goes to publishing? Woody notes 6 days between final content deadline and ballot opening. It’s too difficult to do it a day before ballot open.
 +
#*Charlie notes we are brainstorming content of the quality plan; we will not resolve it today. Ravi notes it is product, process, tooling, people all need to be collated in quality planning.
 +
#*Ed’s issue is what drove Austin to write the article in the first place. The balloters are on their fourth iteration and have not put in the changes that were identified and agreed to during the reconciliation of the first round of balloting.  At some point it is wasting the time of the reviewer.  Need to, in the scope of that project, how that process will happen.
 +
#*Is this a quality plan for the products the organization produces or for the processes we use to publish those products, or the services we offer to the member sand other stakeholders? Charlie states this needs to be made clear in the project scope statement. Austin notes he will write a narrow scope to address specifications.  Other initiatives should be referred to in this scope statement and addressed separately. John will report this to the board. Charlie notes that Bob Dolin has been working on a quality plan for IHTSDO which has not yet been obtained. Need also the draft project activities and expectation-setting for work items and communicated, a light-weight project plan involved with this quality plan.
 +
#*Ann asks not to forget the affiliates and the international contribution to process and deliverables. Charlie notes that the project will need a liaison to the Affiliates Council, likely Ravi. Ravi would be happy to collect feedback from the Council to see what they’d like to see the Quality plan provide. When new projects go out for review they are sent to both the cochairs and the Affiliate chairs to engage if they find it of interest, notes Helen.  Ravi would like to see the architecture to show with a swim lane diagram how the different points of quality are checked. The HDF describes that but it is not well followed and enforced.  It falls down both in closing the loop to bring feedback to the committees and also on enforcement, notes Jane.  The project life cycle is supposed to be enforced by the work group co-chairs notes Ken.  Need another avenue for implementers to say that this doesn’t work, besides just balloting.  Charlie notes we’ve had discussions on project health to note compliance; perhaps the quality plan can address that. Gerald asks if the projects have issue trackers like the TSC? Issue trackers are not effective as a control mechanism notes Woody.  Gerald notes that it works to raise visibility of issues.  Austin adds the visibility would be effective. Charlie notes the NIB also an important check and has been effective. Helen adds that it’s two committees consistently not following the issue then we should not as the TSC spend 80% of our time discussing a problem exhibited by such a small group.  Put them on probation, hand-hold them through the process, call them out. Charlie adds if you don’t get the NIB in, you can’t ballot; if you don’t get your preview material in, you can’t get on the ballot.  If you don’t include material you said you would on the reconciliation, they should be removed from the ballot. Helen says even if it is found to happen even after the ballot opens just pull them out of the ballot.  Woody asks how do we reconcile when the committee says that they did it and the negative voter maintains it is not addressed. Helen suggests that if the voter addresses it with the committee, the Steering Division, and the TSC with full information and education is found to be in bad faith, then you can pull it out of the ballot.  Woody notes that it will be difficult to address within 30 days during when the ballot is open. 
 +
#*Charlie notes that this repeating problem is clearly something the TSC needs to address. Woody notes we should indeed be tough when we are confident that the issue has been carefully reviewed. Austin notes if we can identify work groups that are abusing the reconciliation process, we are able to insert into their processes the requirement for a rigorous peer review before returning to ballot.
 +
#*Mead notes the TSC should invite the chairs of those committees to talk to the TSC and discuss this particular concern. One committee is Pharmacy and the other was Patient Care with whom we are now working more closely.  Both are in DESD.  It is not exclusive to them.  Also there was stale content which was removed from the ballot site, which helped. Should we invite them to participate with the quality plan.  Woody says we should have their publishing facilitators attend the publishing calls. Ravi notes we used the TSC’s power in getting the DCM project more clearly identified. Can we have them identify the specifics of the changes in a ballot? Then such a spreadsheet identifying the changes can be reviewed to see that the negative vote reconciliation is included. Need also a liaison with CfH and CHI to see how their quality processes can be reflected.  Can have also participation in publishing calls added to Work Group Health.  Could add requirement to include publishing facilitator – Helen notes we all review with project scope statements.
 +
Recess 10:35am
  
  

Revision as of 13:37, 15 May 2010

TSC Saturday meeting for 2010May WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas


back to WGM Information

Agenda

Day Date ' Time Icon Event Chair Scribe Room
Saturday 15 May 2010 AM Q1 Business med.gif Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am
  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Roadmap discussion
  4. HL7 Quality Plan
 Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Bandeirantes
Q2 Business icon TSC Planning and Open Issue Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm
  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  2. Scalability and impact of U.S. ONC work
  3. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
  4. (May) Review Technology Plan 2009 and update milestones
  5. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
  6. (May) Review TSC Communications Plan - how are we doing against it?
    • Maintenance project: obtain / publish WG updates to M&C, SWOTs and DMPs
    • Task: report Work Group Health, and Work Group Visibility
    • Task: Investigate work groups not having posted meeting minutes at WGM to revisit metrics on whether the WG has 'met'
    • Task: Investigate work groups meeting minutes at WGM to establish metrics on number of active in-person participants when the WG has 'met'
    • Task: Report Project Visibility
    • Task: Report Product Visibility
 Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Bandeirantes
PM Q3 Business med.gif TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm
  1. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
    • WGM Development Project
    • Innovations Project
    • Product Strategy Project (Project Insight # 413)
    • T3F Strategic Initiative Review
    • Review ISO/CEN/HL7 tracking; should the TSC be hosting the Sunday Q4 'activities with other SDOs'?
 Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Bandeirantes
Q4 Business med.gif Architecture and Tooling: 3:30 pm to 5pm
  1. Governance of full project life cycle
  2. ArB
  3. Tooling
 Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Bandeirantes
.
Sunday 16 May 2010 AM Q1
Q2
PM Q3
Q4 Business med.gif HL7 Activities with Other SDOs Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Versailles I and II
Q5 Business med.gif TSC Sunday Dinner/Meeting
SAIF 		Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Liberdade
.
Monday 17 May 2010 AM Q1
Q2
PM Q3
Q4
Q5 Business med.gif TSC Monday Co-Chairs Dinner/Meeting Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Windsor
.
Tuesday 18 May 2010 AM Q1
Q2
Lunch Business med.gif TSC Tuesday Luncheon Meeting

WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links

  • (September) Review TSC SWOT and Three-Year Plan
  • (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter
 Charlie McCay Lynn Laakso Versailles I
PM Q3
Q4
.
Wednesday 19 May 2010 AM Q1
Q2
PM Q3
Q4 Technical med.gif Enterprise Architecture Alpha Projects Meeting El Pardo I
.
Thursday 20 May 2010 AM Q1 Technical med.gif HL7 Research and Innovations Workshop
  • Q1: Overview and Video Presentations
  • Q2: Discussion and next steps
 Versailles I
Q2
PM Q3
Q4
.



Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Bandeirantes

Date: 2010-05-15
Time: 9:00am - 5:00pm BRT (GMT-3)
Facilitator Charlie McCay Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation Email Address
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD cbeebe@mayo.edu
? Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD woody@beelers.com
? Bob Dolin HL7 Chair bobdolin@gmail.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
regrets; travel delay Charlie Mead HL7 ArB meadch@mail.nih.gov
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
? Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca
? John Quinn HL7 CTO jquinn@hl7.org
travel delay Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Alternate gregg.seppala@va.gov
x Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Alternate helen.stevens@shaw.ca
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Alternate Edward.tripp@estripp.com
x D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Alternate dmead@comcast.net
Rene Spronk guest, HL7 NL chair, RIMBAA Chair Rene.Spronk@ringholm.com
Jane Curry guest, ArB and Tooling janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Ann Wrightson guest, HL7 UK Technical Chair Ann.Wrightson@wales.nhs.uk
Gerald Beucheldt guest, Mitre, Templates interest
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)
Agenda Topics

Q1 - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • see attendance
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
    • In future will have others’ names on agenda items, members must take ownership of items or they won’t have priority on the agenda.
    • Need reports back on items requested, written offline. Just a couple of lines, not a verbal update; post to the wiki directly, email the list or Lynn.
    • Gerald asks if we are Tweeting using tags? Rene reports they have been using WGM2010
    • Jane asks when are the reports due? By Friday 9 am Eastern time for the leadership planning call.
    • Helen suggests the agenda include questions or comments from the membership on the reports.
    • Charlie suggests to add if video or audio recording and documenting of proceedings; disclosure that recording is occurring is needed. Rene suggests it be added to the DMPs. Helen reports that the DMP is being revised now and can be addressed. Will it be with advance permission or notice? Defer conversation to PIC.
    • Charlie asks to add discussion of future agenda discussion for the remainder of the week and messages for the cochairs meeting, etc.
  3. Roadmap discussion
    • Last WGM the TSC created SMART objectives. Roadmap committee reviewed them and created Subgroups tasked to work on individual initiatives. There is no comprehensive reporting back from the subgroups at this time. Who will take the lead to report back on these roadmap discussions? They will meet Wednesday morning. Need someone to bring out the actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on those recommendations. John volunteers to work with Lynn and Karen on these.
      • Jane suggests we also determine when we expect to hear back. Later this week or after the Board retreat? John will report back on the next conference call after the Roadmap committee meets this week. Ravi asks what are the deliverables and process. Need to have those initiatives identified by the Roadmap committee provide communication of expected delivery.
    • Ken thinks we need a page of definitions of what the Roadmap is about to clearly outline the goal of the Roadmap. Helen agrees and thinks the Roadmap committee needs a communications plan to the membership. Ravi notes we have worked on product and project visibility but the Roadmap does not have this visibility. Ken had started a drawing to describe them but ended up identifying tactical elements among the strategies. Need also to have marketing council wrap around that and put something out there. Noted to John, our liaison to the Roadmap committee.
  4. HL7 Quality Plan
    • John reports we’ve discussed it a few times, Woody came up with something for January. Our progress report so far is one slide with not much to report.
    • Austin wrote an article for technical newsletter
    • Woody added wiki page for Quality Analysis in Ballot to find things that cause failures in validation, and included the ballot quality reports automatically as part of TOC for each ballot. This is the publishing effort, there are other efforts in tooling, and John will incorporate into his report.
    • Austin notes from his article several elements from Woody’s report as well as concerns on reconciliation. He notes there are quality processes involved with SAIF that were not written into his article. Charlie thinks we need a project scope document for producing the quality plan, and Austin volunteers to lead the project. Need the scope statement and the responsibility is shared by TSC and CTO. ACTION ITEM: Austin will draft one and run it past John. When? Should we discuss again Tuesday lunch?
    • Is the product and services strategy part of the quality plan? It should be separate.
    • Woody suggests change to the GOM to cast negative votes other than through the ballot pool (by foundation or methodology groups). Helen asks are we authorizing individuals or the cochairs of groups, or as a committee vote? Woody suggests key representatives of a set of foundation groups they would collectively vote as a consensus as a single vote? Is ‘balloting’ the quality plan or will there be other quality checks upstream, asks Austin. Helen notes if a group doesn’t know they have a quality problem, or do not pay attention to the quality factors. The tooling and automated QA in publishing’s work to bring those out will provide upstream quality checks. John reports technical issues when the ballot workbench is backed up the day before the ballot close falsely showing ballot problems.
      • Mandarins in this case are the facilitators in every domain are supposed to participate in a formally defined publishing process and the negative votes might be cast against those whose facilitators do not participate. Ann fears innovative efforts might get stomped on before they reach DSTU. Woody notes that problems are more about a DSTU that has been out for 18 months and has never successfully had a schema validated against it. Helen notes these situations should have a plan with dated milestones to fix it rather than just a negative vote on the ballot. TSC should have the power to ‘take our name off’ a product.
    • Ed notes problems where the issuer of a ballot that notes during reconciliation that something would be fixed but it was not fixed. Should they note where the fix is included in the ballot before it goes to publishing? Woody notes 6 days between final content deadline and ballot opening. It’s too difficult to do it a day before ballot open.
    • Charlie notes we are brainstorming content of the quality plan; we will not resolve it today. Ravi notes it is product, process, tooling, people all need to be collated in quality planning.
    • Ed’s issue is what drove Austin to write the article in the first place. The balloters are on their fourth iteration and have not put in the changes that were identified and agreed to during the reconciliation of the first round of balloting. At some point it is wasting the time of the reviewer. Need to, in the scope of that project, how that process will happen.
    • Is this a quality plan for the products the organization produces or for the processes we use to publish those products, or the services we offer to the member sand other stakeholders? Charlie states this needs to be made clear in the project scope statement. Austin notes he will write a narrow scope to address specifications. Other initiatives should be referred to in this scope statement and addressed separately. John will report this to the board. Charlie notes that Bob Dolin has been working on a quality plan for IHTSDO which has not yet been obtained. Need also the draft project activities and expectation-setting for work items and communicated, a light-weight project plan involved with this quality plan.
    • Ann asks not to forget the affiliates and the international contribution to process and deliverables. Charlie notes that the project will need a liaison to the Affiliates Council, likely Ravi. Ravi would be happy to collect feedback from the Council to see what they’d like to see the Quality plan provide. When new projects go out for review they are sent to both the cochairs and the Affiliate chairs to engage if they find it of interest, notes Helen. Ravi would like to see the architecture to show with a swim lane diagram how the different points of quality are checked. The HDF describes that but it is not well followed and enforced. It falls down both in closing the loop to bring feedback to the committees and also on enforcement, notes Jane. The project life cycle is supposed to be enforced by the work group co-chairs notes Ken. Need another avenue for implementers to say that this doesn’t work, besides just balloting. Charlie notes we’ve had discussions on project health to note compliance; perhaps the quality plan can address that. Gerald asks if the projects have issue trackers like the TSC? Issue trackers are not effective as a control mechanism notes Woody. Gerald notes that it works to raise visibility of issues. Austin adds the visibility would be effective. Charlie notes the NIB also an important check and has been effective. Helen adds that it’s two committees consistently not following the issue then we should not as the TSC spend 80% of our time discussing a problem exhibited by such a small group. Put them on probation, hand-hold them through the process, call them out. Charlie adds if you don’t get the NIB in, you can’t ballot; if you don’t get your preview material in, you can’t get on the ballot. If you don’t include material you said you would on the reconciliation, they should be removed from the ballot. Helen says even if it is found to happen even after the ballot opens just pull them out of the ballot. Woody asks how do we reconcile when the committee says that they did it and the negative voter maintains it is not addressed. Helen suggests that if the voter addresses it with the committee, the Steering Division, and the TSC with full information and education is found to be in bad faith, then you can pull it out of the ballot. Woody notes that it will be difficult to address within 30 days during when the ballot is open.
    • Charlie notes that this repeating problem is clearly something the TSC needs to address. Woody notes we should indeed be tough when we are confident that the issue has been carefully reviewed. Austin notes if we can identify work groups that are abusing the reconciliation process, we are able to insert into their processes the requirement for a rigorous peer review before returning to ballot.
    • Mead notes the TSC should invite the chairs of those committees to talk to the TSC and discuss this particular concern. One committee is Pharmacy and the other was Patient Care with whom we are now working more closely. Both are in DESD. It is not exclusive to them. Also there was stale content which was removed from the ballot site, which helped. Should we invite them to participate with the quality plan. Woody says we should have their publishing facilitators attend the publishing calls. Ravi notes we used the TSC’s power in getting the DCM project more clearly identified. Can we have them identify the specifics of the changes in a ballot? Then such a spreadsheet identifying the changes can be reviewed to see that the negative vote reconciliation is included. Need also a liaison with CfH and CHI to see how their quality processes can be reflected. Can have also participation in publishing calls added to Work Group Health. Could add requirement to include publishing facilitator – Helen notes we all review with project scope statements.

Recess 10:35am


Q2 - TSC Planning and Open Issue Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • TSC Tracker # 1511, For 2010MayWGM: DSTU Approval Process review and discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1420 TSC Mission/Charter review - GOM change suggestion SD reps to co-chairs
      • Status: GOM change proposal?
    • TSC Tracker # 1364 Foster development of Product Strategy
      • Status: On agenda Q3
    • TSC Tracker # 1319 IPR, patents, and copyright issues
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 984 JIC Project: Harmonised health informatics document registry and glossary
      • Status: has not yet come as project scope for approval within HL7
    • TSC Tracker # 749 Review the role of the steering divisions
      • Status: DESD Article on Role of Steering Divisions published in January Newsletter. Feedback?
  2. Scalability and impact of U.S. ONC work
  3. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
  4. (May) Review Technology Plan 2009 and update milestones
  5. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
  6. (May) Review TSC Communications Plan - how are we doing against it?
    • Maintenance project: obtain / publish WG updates to M&C, SWOTs and DMPs
    • Task: report Work Group Health, and Work Group Visibility
    • Task: Investigate work groups not having posted meeting minutes at WGM to revisit metrics on whether the WG has 'met'
    • Task: Investigate work groups meeting minutes at WGM to establish metrics on number of active in-person participants when the WG has 'met'
    • Task: Report Project Visibility
    • Task: Report Product Visibility


Q3 - TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
    • WGM Development Project
    • Innovations Project
    • Product Strategy Project (Project Insight # 413)
    • T3F Strategic Initiative Review
    • Review ISO/CEN/HL7 tracking; should the TSC be hosting the Sunday Q4 'activities with other SDOs'?

Q4 - Architecture and Tooling: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. Governance of full project life cycle
  2. ArB
  3. Tooling


Sunday - SAIF?

Tuesday lunch

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter
    • (September) Review TSC SWOT and Three-Year Plan


Supporting Documents
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-05-15_TSC_WGM_Agenda&oldid=6379"