2010-07-26 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 16:09, 27 July 2010 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(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: 2010-07-26
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator John Quinn Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
regrets 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
regrets 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
regrets Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x John Rhoads Health Care Devices co-chair
x William Goossen Patient Care co-chair
x Robert Worden Neutral Mapping Notation project facilitator


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 - John Quinn
  3. Approve Minutes of 2010-07-12_TSC_Call_Agenda, 2010-07-19_TSC_Call_Agenda
  4. Review action items –
    • #1602 - Ken: Review draft description of TSC nomination committee composition
    • 1583 Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Communication Plan Project - scope statement - Ravi Natarajan
      • Circulated the project scope and back to the TSC again for final approval
      • Ravi will approach the Marketing Council to participate.
    • 1574 Develop Quality Plan project scope statement, see also TSC 3-yr plan project at Project Insight #647, TSC Tracker # 1364 - Draft Product Quality Scope Statement - Austin Kreisler
    • #1582 - Ed: Draft Project Scope Statement for TSC Innovations Project
    • #1581 - Woody: Draft Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review project
    • #1580 - Ken and John: Draft Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Plan
    • #1579 - Ken: Draft Project Scope Statement
    • #1576 - Lynn: Work with Project Services to draft Project Communications Plan
    • #1573 - John Quinn: Identify actions needed to be taken by the TSC based on Roadmap subcommittee recommendations.
    • #1573 - 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.
    • #1539 - Ron to pull the elevator pitch out for TSC review.
  5. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  6. CTO Report - John Quinn
  7. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  8. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan/ Charlie McCay
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  10. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
  11. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
  12. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
  13. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  14. WGM Planning -
    • Marketing and promotion - update from HQ -
    • TSC preparations - Lynn Laakso
    • Working Group preparations - agendas
  15. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  16. Discussion Topics:
    • List of TSC approvals needed for September Ballot cycle at TSC Tracker # 1607
    • Nominations update:
      Domain Experts: 1 nominee.
      Foundation and Technology: Have 3 nominees.
      Structured and Semantic Design: 1 nominee.
      Technical and Support Services: 2 nominees .
      International Affiliates: Have 2 nominees
    • Open Issues List


Supporting Documents


Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Visitors: William Goossen, Patient Care; John Rhoads, Health Care Devices; Robert Worden, Neutral Mapping Notation project facilitator
  2. Agenda review and approval - John Quinn
  3. Approve Minutes of 2010-07-12_TSC_Call_Agenda, and notes from 2010-07-19_TSC_Call_Agenda that did not reach quorum.
    • Ken moves for the 12th, second Austin; Mead abstains, Vote: minutes of 12 July approved 4/0/1.
    • Austin moves for the 19th; Helen abstains from 19 July – no quorum reached. Ken offers amendment that we change it from ‘minutes’ to Notes, Austin accepts amendment. Ken seconds. Vote: Approved unanimously.
  4. Review action items –
    • #1602 - Ken: Review draft description of TSC nomination committee composition
      • Ken notes that the TSC from its membership appoint a member, each Steering Division and Affiliates each nominate one person. This would be a six-member group. John notes that Karen told him the GOC suggested it be delegated to the nominations committee for the Board. Karen’s perception was that no other co-chairs had come forward to run for Steering Division co-chair and TSC Rep. Ken and Helen both noted that there were others. DESD was the group that had the most difficulty finding candidates. 3 nominees for FTSD; SSD had 2 but one withdrew; and two for T3SD and International Affiliates. Helen notes Ken has done a great job and doesn’t want to delegate to the Nominations committee. Ken will bring the proposal to the next TSC conference call, and follow up with Karen to ensure his numbers are correct.
    • 1583 Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Communication Plan Project - scope statement - Ravi Natarajan
      • Circulated the project scope and back to the TSC again for final approval
      • Ravi will approach the Marketing Council to participate.
      • There has been little feedback. Motion to approve by Ravi, second by Helen. Change example abbreviation in Project Need for ex.;
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
    • 1574 Develop Quality Plan project scope statement, see also TSC 3-yr plan project at Project Insight #647, TSC Tracker # 1364 - Draft Product Quality Scope Statement - Austin Kreisler
      • Helen asks what is involved with accreditation with ISO9001? Ravi asks if we can work towards alignment with quality standards without accreditation, just to state how we will achieve this alignment? That would have to be established during the project, states Austin; this would be an assessment of the feasibility, not the actual effort for accreditation. Austin will modify to assess alignment with applicable quality standards …
      • Project Need – added statement in regard to guidance on standards with limited geographic scope as “international”.
      • Austin moves to approve for circulation to cochairs. Ken seconds;
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
  5. CTO Report - John Quinn – last week did testimony for NCVHS (Ken was there), oral presentation at NCVHS request on health care identifiers. Discussed OIDs and importance of non-meaningful identifiers, and claims outside of U.S. based on Michael VanCampen’s input. He’ll get a formal report out this week for next week with copies of the testimonies.
  6. ArB Report – no available
  7. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan, will be conducting next international meeting next week for contribution to the projects.
  8. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  9. Foundation & Technology Report–Mead Walker
    • Motion: Approve Neutral Mapping Notation by ITS WG, see TSC Tracker # 1600, Project Insight # 680.
      • Robert Worden is on the call at this point. Mead moves to approve. Ken asks how this becomes a new standard or a new product. Mead doesn’t think it’s a standard product, but an agreement on mapping would be of great value between different structures and implementations must address this all the time. A foundational notion in the SAIF architecture is mapping between domain models and design models. Maintaining the models in parallel requires maintaining a mapping between them. There is a ballot type of DSTU. Robert asks for preliminary approval now, discuss it in Cambridge, then once be using it we evaluate it as a ballot. Helen suggests we narrow the project scope to non-ballot, relationship to other standards being of consideration. What is the impact on the other work groups? Robert notes that a strong recommendation that work groups express their mapping in the way this describes. Helen asks will it become a required deliverable of all other projects? Robert suggests they develop it and then HL7 can evaluate how it will be used.
      • Austin asks about the timeline, where the implementers would be implementing this in advance of the January cycle where it would be balloted. A more realistic timeline is needed. Robert says a representation is available now, which they can use. DSTU standards are typically picked up and used after the ballot is completed, notes Austin. The process proposed is not part of the usual DSTU process.
      • Helen asks if the committees that own these products are not represented as co-sponsors. Robert reports there has been dialogue with the committees.
      • Helen suggests that this scope statement is not yet ready for approval. Mead recaps the issues as: it’s not clear how this will be used, the list of cosponsors is inadequate, and the timeline is too aggressive. Robert notes that those are valid comments and can adjust the scope statement accordingly, but insists that a pre-evaluation phase before DSTU ballot is reasonable. Helen suggests that is spelled out in more detail in the timeline.
      • Motion tabled.
    • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Vocabulary Syntax Binding for Vocabulary WG at TSC Tracker # 1447
      • Noted that it is marked as informative and normative ballot at the same time. It should be informative. This is guidance for implementation guides on managing vocabulary, notes Ken. Calvin seconds.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
  10. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
  11. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
    • PIC - Updated Decision Making Practices Template for review/endorsement
    • This is the template that Work Groups can modify, and a default that will become in effect if Work Groups do not customize a template for their Work Group will be later circulated. Austin notes they need to scrap their existing decision making practices and adopt this one? Why should they scrap them and start over? Mead notes that we can tell them so, but it’s not going to happen. Ken notes this aligns things with the GOM and electronic messaging/e-votes, and meeting minutes recommendations. It’s more an alignment with decisions the TSC has made. Mead notes that we can tell the work groups they’re out of sync and need to change, or go through the existing DMPs and note what is deficient. It’s a lot of work for someone. Austin notes it will be ignored by the majority of Work Groups. John notes that if the Board modifies the GOM or the TSC makes recommendations for changes, how else do we implement a change in process by the work groups? Perhaps that’s the bigger issue that needs to be addressed… Ken suggests we postpone discussion to next week when Helen and Charlie are here. Tabled.
  12. Noted that Monday August 2nd is a holiday in Canada… Ken will reach out to Helen to confirm.
  13. Discussion Topics:
    • List of TSC approvals needed for September Ballot cycle at TSC Tracker # 1607
    • Nominations update:
      Domain Experts: 1 nominee.
      Foundation and Technology: Have 3 nominees.
      Structured and Semantic Design: 1 nominee.
      Technical and Support Services: 2 nominees .
      International Affiliates: Have 2 nominees
  14. Adjourned 12:00PM EDT

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=2010-07-26_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=6767"