2010-09-27 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 13:09, 27 September 2010 by Llaakso (talk | contribs) (SSD SD report and regrets)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

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

Date: CCYY-MM-DD
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie McCay Note taker(s) Lynn Laakso


Attendee Name Affiliation
regrets Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
? Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
? Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
? Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
? Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
? Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
? Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
regrets Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
? Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
? Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
? John Quinn HL7 CTO
? Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
? Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
? Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
? D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair


Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Charlie McCay
  3. Affiliates Report – Ravi Natarajan
    • Ravi unable to attend in Cambridge. Would you prefer to have some one nominated for my absence to cover the TSC Meetings.
  4. Approve Minutes of 2010-09-20_TSC_Call_Minutes
  5. Review action items – none this week.
  6. HL7 Chair or CEO Report – if available
  7. CTO Report - John Quinn
  8. ArB Report – Charlie Mead/Ron Parker
  9. Domain Experts Report– Austin Kreisler/Ed Tripp
  10. Foundation & Technology Report– Woody Beeler/Mead Walker
    • follow up on TSC Tracker # 1513, HL7 Security Considerations - Cookbook. What is its status?
  11. Structure & Semantic Design Report– Calvin Beebe/Gregg Seppala
    • Calvin reports: No items from SDWG this week... On the bright side, I finished up this weekend a presentation on SAEAF Governance for the TSC meeting on Saturday.
  12. Technical & Support Services Report- Ken McCaslin/ Helen Stevens
  13. Membership Comments on Steering Division Reports
  14. WGM Planning -
  15. Organizational Relations Committee update (semiweekly) - Helen Stevens
  16. Discussion Topics:
    • Open Issues List
      • #1636 - Review Project Scope Statement for U.S. Healthcare Readiness Project
        • Motion: Approve Project
      • #1606 Guidelines for Universal projects: Austin to draft paragraph
        • The following are a set of guidelines drafted by the TSC for the purpose of providing guidance to work groups as they decide whether or not a proposed project should be considered a universal realm project or a realm specific project. Projects meeting one or more of these guidelines are certainly candidates for being universal realm projects.
          • Stakeholders representing 2 Realms at a minimum, where stakeholder should be interpreted as a specific group or organization listed in the External Project Collaboration section or the Stakeholders / Vendors / Providers section of the project scope statement
          • 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
        • In the future, the project scope statement template may be updated to allow this realm representation clearer. In the interim, work groups are encouraged to document in the scope statement:
          • What realms an group or organization is representing
          • What realms project team members represent
          • What realms a project will be implemented in
          • What realms requirements are being drawn from
        • It should be noted that other considerations outside these guidelines may dictate that a project should be universal. For instance any project developing a normative base standard such as CDA R3 or the Composite order should probably be a universal realm project. Such projects should strive to meet the above guidelines but may not be able to for a variety of reasons. In the circumstance where a sponsoring work group believes a project should be universal but doesn't meet the above guidelines, the project can still be put forward as universal, but the sponsoring work groups should clearly indicate in the project scope statement that additional realm participation is needed in the project. The project approval process may surface additional realms wishing to participate.
      • #1590 - TSC Review of Project Approval Process
        • The TSC needs only to review Affiliate-sponsored projects which contain affiliate-specific deliverables and not any technical deliverables. Previously, the process had the TSC approving these types of projects.
        • During their review, the International Council should assess whether any project deliverables are technical in nature. If any are deemed technical, the Project Facilitator shall return to Step 1 of the Project Approval Process and follow the TSC Work Group Project Approval Process.
      • #1640 Definition of substantiveness and update of guidance documents - clarify responsibility belonging to ArB and request update?
    • Work Group Health review; follow up activities?

Supporting Documents

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .