2010-10-02 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 14:14, 19 October 2010 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for 2010OctWGM, Cambridge MA

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location:

Date:2010-10-02
Time: 9:00am - 5:00pm EDT
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
x Jane Curry guest, Tooling committee
x Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO, member ex officio
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
x Patrick Loyd invited guest, TSS SD Co-Chair-elect
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Affiliate Representative
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x 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
x D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Tony Julian invited guest, FTSD Co-Chair-elect
x Jay Zimmerman ad-hoc Member, and Affiliate Representative-elect


Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

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)
    • Welcoming new TSC Member-elects!
      • ad hoc membership for Affiliate representation?
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Roadmap discussion
  4. HL7 Business Plan
  5. HL7 Quality Plan
    • Product Quality Plan on Project Insight at Project Insight # 647 - Austin
      • Status: Austin - Project scope has been approved. Still need to hold the project kickoff and get the project rolling. Meaningful use got in the way of my spending time on this over the summer.

Q2 - TSC Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • TSC Tracker # 984,JIC Project: Harmonised health informatics document registry and glossary:
      • Status: Scope statement pending approval by Steering Division
    • TSC Tracker # 1364, Foster development of Product Strategy
      • Action Item: #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1513, HL7 Security Considerations - Cookbook
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1547, Publishing committee organization; differentiation between V2 and V3
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1600, Neutral Mapping Notation
      • Status: Project scope being revised during ITS sessions at WGM, will come back to TSC after update.
    • TSC Tracker # 1635, Determine composition of TSC Nomination Committee
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1640, Definition of substantiveness and update of guidance documents
      • Status: for discussion
    • TSC Tracker # 1643, CMETs need ANSI updates (no ANSI update since R2!) - how to proceed?
      • Status: Woody and Karen will meet in Cambridge to talk about how to handle CMETs. Hopefully, we will have a recommendation on moving this forward by the end of next week.
    • TSC Tracker # 1647, How to proceed with NCPDP’s request for mapping to the RIM
      • Status: John waiting for resource recommendations from Bob Dolin
  2. Maintenance project: obtain / publish WG updates to M&C, SWOTs and DMPs
    • Task: report Work Group Health, and Work Group Visibility
      • Requests for updates to Work Group Health - see WGH Tracker
        1. Tracker # 1569, Suggested enhancement to decouple WGM attendance from out-of-cycle meetings, that meetings conducted Out-of-Cycle be counted separately from (or not counted as) WGM attendance.
        2. Tracker # 1572, Suggested enhancement that attendance at Steering Division Face-to-Face meetings at the Working Group Meeting should be measured as a separate metric.
        3. TSC WGH Metrics Tracker # 1645 Suggested enhancement that attendance at conference calls be compared as a ratio against listserv subscribers to note participation.
        4. Tracker # 1649, Suggested enhancement to Add metrics to WGH for % of projects having next milestone date in the past
        5. Tracker # 1650, Suggested enhancement to Change WGH metric update for three-year plan
        6. Tracker # 1651, Suggested enhancement to Investigate work groups not having posted meeting minutes at WGM to revisit metrics on whether the WG has 'met'
        7. Tracker # 1652, Suggested enhancement to 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 - Project Insight # 633 for Project Services.
      • Establish process to update project status at each WGM cycle if balloting - Target: 2010SepWGM (changed from 2010May WGM) - in progress, need to document
      • Retroactively find existing projects' information from 4f: Project Document Repository Location - Target: 2010SepWGM - 79% complete
      • Develop enhancement to Project Insight Searchable Database to return URL of project-related documentation - Target: 2010SepWGM - COMPLETED
      • Develop wiki page layout example for Work Groups to use for project documentation - Target: 2010SeptemberWGM - need example, wiki resource
      • Project Archive process documented for wiki resources - Target: 2011JanWGM
    • Task: Report Product Visibility
  3. Action item TSC Tracker # 1581, Create Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review Project

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

  1. CTO Report
  2. Decision review since last WGM
  3. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
  4. How often to request reports to the TSC on TSC-sponsored projects?
  5. What do we do with project facilitators on TSC projects whose terms end in 2010?

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

  1. ArB
    • Action Item #1322 - ArB membership needs to be reviewed and re-confirmed biannually starting with this upcoming WGM.
  2. Tooling
  3. Quality Plan reprise - if time available

Sunday

  1. SAIF
  2. Summary of Harmonization review of tension between harmonization and balloting - Woody Beeler (there’s a wiki page for reference)

Tuesday lunch

  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links for 2011Jan in Sydney Australia and 2011May in Lake Buena Vista (Orlando)
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter, Decision Making Practices
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      (May) Review TSC Communications Plan
      (September) Review TSC SWOT

Supporting Documents


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

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

Call to order 9:05 AM by Charlie McCay

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Welcoming new TSC Member-elects!
      • ad hoc membership for Affiliate representation?
      • Motion: Helen moved to name Jay Zimmerman as ad-hoc member for the WGM. Second by Austin.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: agenda accepted by general consent
  3. Roadmap discussion
    • Austin had tossed out the idea of having the strategic initiatives subjected to membership ballot. He liked the idea. Strategic initiatives had feedback from TSC and Ravi, incorporated into the Board packet for review Tuesday night. Anticipate annual review.
      • What does the TSC do with that product? Some will come through the business plan. Bob notes the money will come through he business plan and then we’ll look to the strategic initiatives for what to spend the money on.
      • Reviewed Strategic Initiatives criteria document – characterized in a tree format with the HL7 vision at the trunk, source for HL7 Mission, then HL7 Strategic Initiatives, then the Strategic Initiative criteria by which we can determine if the initiatives have been met, within the initiatives criteria we initiate Roadmap Projects. Roadmap projects may fit under one or more of the strategic initiatives. Roughly 3 objective criteria were developed for each initiative. Helen asks if the intent that specific projects will be tagged as Roadmap projects with specific provision of resources or will their roadmap tick marks on the strategic initiatives be the same for any project? Ed notes we could develop a matrix view that better indicates how a dashboard reporting view could be created. Jane notes the criteria must align with the strategic initiative. Bob notes that alignment with the objectives as a cross referenced matrix will allow people to adjust their thinking towards how a project meets the objectives. Helen notes that there are many projects executing, but should note the projects in specific supports of the objectives and dashboard those projects and monitor their execution. If they have a ballot milestone they are not going to meet the TSC calls the project reps in and investigates their challenges. Charlie McCay (CMy) notes this will mesh nicely with the discussion on the project visibility project.
      • Back to the Strategic Initiative Criteria document; Bob’s hope is to have the Board approve the document and then go through an annual cycle.
      • Charlie Mead (CMd) asks if there was internal change management addressed towards achieving the success criteria? CMy asks what issues he has in mind… Bob agrees this should be addressed, noting NHS SMD or SAIF, great ideas but what is the transition strategy? CMy notes we have clear change management in HL7 with Work Groups, products, and projects; should use those tools. SAIF EA IP project as example is failing. Need to address in the context of the Work Group. Transition strategies for key initiatives need to be more efficient. John notes with getting SAIF out of the ArB and into mainstream processes we are challenged. Patrick notes that with SAIF it’s more than one thing, it’s a bunch of pieces in different stages of maturity. Woody observes pressure from the other side, that committees have resource issues, but if they are eager to begin but don’t have guidance from the TSC on how to do so. They have been waiting for governance. CMy notes MnM notes they need a scope on how the methodology is impacted by the SAIF work, so that everyone can see that the activity is actually happening somewhere within HL7. The change management needs to happen within the structure of our project management. Ron says ArB has not reached out actively as they should to obtain support. They haven’t had the cycles to move the agenda forward and he sees based on this discussion the ArB needs to act upon that right away. He sees the potential knowledge is out there, they know where their gaps are but don’t have the resource is to act upon them. Bob notes that with the SI we can see what our organizational priorities are, so that when dollars are available they can flow into it.
      • Proposed process; rename Roadmap committee to SI Committee with current membership composition, ballot for comment only on vision, mission, SI and SI criteria. Inspired by comments to IFR by MU effort, he would like to see comments resolved by SI Cmte and draft revision published. TSC and Board would provide input over spring WGM and Board retreat, and in Sept publish another draft revision, take review with Board and submit for Board approval November or December, starting the cycle again in January with membership ballot. Chuck notes the metrics on which projects are evaluated are based on the existing SI criteria not the proposed. Bob notes they reserve the right to act quickly. Austin notes it’s missing a change request process to collect suggestions and requests. Bob notes that the membership ballot also should ask for suggestions and requests, that the wiki page that has been available for suggestions has never been used for such in the two years it’s been out there. CMy asks how are the draft set of initiatives to be used? How to keep the CxO and staff focused on what the issues are right now rather than what we thought the issues were 12 months ago? The Dashboard reporting is expected to provide that visibility. Austin reminds that to ballot, it needs to be formalized as a project with a Project Scope Statement. Calvin asks when the last point in the cycle that something of substance can be changed before it goes to Board approval and then ballot. When the Board approves the document first week of November, it will be put forth for comment and revisions that would be reviewed and left open for approval the next year. Some working in the GOM revisions needs to be made carefully. Mead says he’d rather see it balloted as not part of the normal ballot cycle. Austin notes that those that take time to participate in balloting are already in the mode. Helen adds that out of cycle takes so much more organizational resources. Bob notes that disposition of comments is easier if we follow an existing process.
  4. HL7 Business Plan
    • Chuck noted the Board identified a separation of responsibilities predicated on revenue generation, expenses, and performance. At the Board level decided they needed to provide a business plan and development cycle for raising revenue and provide for process. Task force created around time of the retreat to focus on business plan development and crate RFP. Three groups responded for the creation and implementation of the plan along with metrics around effectiveness of implementation; they had three superb submissions. 15 month process was envisioned. At the Board meeting they will present the findings of the Business Plan task force and the award winner will begin developing the process in concert with the Board. 15 month timeline in concert with intellectual property considerations and other activities. TSC will need to wait to see how they will support the new approach. Bob thinks that the best input is through the strategic initiatives to show what the priorities are. Most approaches suggested that the TSC would be responsible for guidance on implementing the strategies in allocating resources to the projects. Ron notes that knowing how the organization obtains revenue the TSC needs to ensure we provide value back. Chuck notes that each proposal suggests interaction with the TSC in different ways to engage that activity. Calvin notes that this relates to governance of the governance; semantics of business plan may be confusing people. Board leve business plan is more focused toward revenue generation. Bob notes the TSC may be able to formulate exactly what it is we’re selling in our value package. Chuck notes you need to connect the value of what you get from HL7 and what you pay for it for which the perception does not exist today. CMy notes that the steering portion of the TSC for encouraging certain projects, routing others to other SDOs, should be based on the strategic initiatives. Infrastructure and resource to maintain and sustain key projects is tied to budget and needs to interact with business planning group. TSC needs a product strategy to say what our products look like, they fit within an architecture, they are useful and they are used. Chuck asks if we generate products and services that can be used rather than focusing on products that will generate revenue.
  5. HL7 Quality Plan. CMy notes businesses ask: is it worthwhile (SI), can we do it (viability), can we afford to do it (revenue, sponsorship)? The TSC needs the projects to be responsible for answering those questions. The Working Group needs to generate products not just turnout specifications. Helen notes projects are not typically successful without external organizations committed with resources. Projects that come through the TSC are very ground-up. Ed adds a fourth question that will it get us to where we want to go… Patrick asks if we’ve ever turned anyone down. Not if the CEO asks, and offers resources, but if just a programmer attends a meeting and asks for help with something they may not find others to help. Chuck notes that he’s often discussed with the government agencies that they think they can send resources to work only on their projects but support for the balloting and publishing after the fact has often been overlooked. Also, to have people work on your project you must support the organization by working on other people’s projects. Layoffs have been a problem where key participants lost their organizational support.
    • CMy notes the TSC needs guidance on what is the product strategy and what is the financial model, to be receptive to the strategic guidance. We have to wait for the Board decision; Helen notes we should perhaps have the TSC have a special call. Chuck notes that there’s been demand to insert extra meetings in between to promote the business plan. Thinking must be re-cast among the Working Group says Helen, at the ground level.
    • Bob notes we will try to sell a value proposition to a sponsor and they may say, that’s nice, but what we really want is xyz. Helen notes we need to identify customers who will pay for the IP developed; Chuck notes he refers to them as stakeholders. Ken thinks it is important to evaluate projects based on our strategy. CMy notes 3 yrs ago it was organic, proposals were useful, but people didn’t know where things were happening and duplication existed. Work Group Health, visibility of minutes, etc. Projects are the next step. Project visibility will help external organizations see what is happening and where they can put their resources as well as expose the holes. Usually attendees sent by organizations saying “I want a specification with an HL7 badge” but won’t pay for anything over and above. Specification development service is major revenue generation, but major cost center for collateral input from HQ and other members. Escrow piece for existing product (IP) has another type of value generation. Chuck notes the old model worked well for a long time but can no longer scale further.
    • Having received a better overview of the strategic issues in Q1, we are moving into the next quarter to address issues ‘in the weeds’.


Recessed 10:35am

Q2 - TSC Review: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Reconvened at 11:08 am

    • Product Quality Plan on Project Insight at Project Insight # 647 - Austin
      • Status: Austin - Project scope has been approved. Still need to hold the project kickoff and get the project rolling. Meaningful use got in the way of my spending time on this over the summer.
      • Woody notes that Publishing continues to make progress with those things, to be unveiled tomorrow’s tutorial.
  2. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • TSC Tracker # 984,JIC Project: Harmonised health informatics document registry and glossary:
      • Status: Scope statement pending approval by Steering Division
      • Woody comments that they thought there were supposed to be involvement by other groups that they haven’t seen yet. ISO thought on the project is that five people vet the glossary terms to select which one is correct, establishing a standard in and of itself.
      • Issue is that as a JIC project, progressing within JIC or ISO but not yet formally approved in HL7. Ron notes that it should probably be taken off the JIC list as a JIC project. HL7 needs to go to ISO and voice their concerns as well, through the US TAG. How do we get the other countries’ TAGs to also do so. CMy notes that maybe we should have a mailing list for input to the ISO TAG liaison so that even if the ISO TAG chair is not an HL7 member. Ron thinks the International Council should receive some direction on that. Helen notes the Affiliate Chairs are in fact the HL7 representatives in their countries, so they would need to be involved.
      • Action: Jay to raise this to the International Council. Lynn to add to the agenda for Activities with Other SDOs Sunday Q4.
      • Charlie hopes this might become a healthy project at some date; Woody thinks that a full HL7 Glossary is an important thing. EHR is building a hierarchical glossary and exposing it this week so perhaps they can find out where it belongs. Woody notes since 2002 there has been a master glossary mechanism he’d like to see them used. Helen will follow up with EHR.
      • Lynn notes the ArB listserv had Karen Smith’s publication of a SAIF glossary as well, in DITA but will that work with the HL7 glossary. Ron notes there are all kinds of other glossaries as well that need to be brought together. CMy notes that Publishing has responsibility for glossary and CMy will note in Monday night’s presentation announce that any work group having their own glossary needs to work with their publishing facilitator to make Publishing aware of their glossary entries. He will make the assumption explicit that each work group needs to have Publishing Facilitator. Need a course to get to a single source within HL7, notes Ed.
    • TSC Tracker # 1364, Foster development of Product Strategy
      • Action Item: #1579 - Create Project Scope Statement for TSC Product and Services Strategy Project - Ken and Calvin
      • Status: now a group of three, but have not convened. Will try to do so this week. Ken/Calvin/John.
      • CMy notes the product strategy is needed, where it comes from and how it’s pulled together is for this group but not the development of the strategy itself. Helen sees it related to the business plan work and tie in.
    • TSC Tracker # 1513, HL7 Security Considerations - Cookbook
      • Status: they are on the EHR wg agenda for ½ hour to implement this. They are also providing a tutorial on material that hasn’t been balloted.
      • this is also on the FTSD agenda for Monday night notes Woody. The intent is to ask them to determine how this would apply to something specific, like what Lab is doing. It has concepts but doesn’t tell you what you need to do (like the frameworks). What do you functionally think one has to do to design a lab message. Helen notes they have templates on their wiki for use with CDA etc. and they’re actively working with Work Groups to implement it (EHR). Woody notes that they may have a template for CDA but they haven’t discussed it with Structured Documents.
      • CMy notes that we need to address with Education that it be
      • Motion by Helen that Education should not schedule education sessions for material that has not completed the appropriate approval processes unless explicitly approved by TSC. Austin seconds. He recommends it be clearly marked as Draft and not Final material. Mead would like to get a perspective from the Education committee before defining policy on their behalf. Patrick notes that SAIF was an existing example. The SAIF tutorial material were clearly marked draft, but just seeing it on the tutorial selection gives it weight.
      • One appropriate approval process is ballot, another is harmonization (vocabulary), another peer review (SAIF).
      • Woody would like to give the Education committee a simple way to schedule tutorials without having to call a TSC meeting. Meadmoves to table until we talk to Education. Woody seconds. Helen asks T3SD work with Education to bring this to their attention. We’ll address on Tuesday. Motion passes unanimously.
      • Motion: those providing security cookbook material in tutorial or discussion with other work groups be clearly identfieid as draft and seeking feedback prior to going to ballot. Vote: unanimously approved. FTSD chairs will bring the message to them. T3SD chairs will communicate this resolution to Education.
    • TSC Tracker # 1547, Publishing committee organization; differentiation between V2 and V3
      • Status: Not really broken, may not require action. Helen notes they don’t participate on Steering Division calls. Woody notes Jane Daus can no longer do it and so they’re missing an active V2 cochair. V2 is essentially unsupported in the Publishing WG, but the TSC does not need to do anything about it. Close this item.
    • TSC Tracker # 1600, Neutral Mapping Notation
      • Status: Project scope being revised during ITS sessions at WGM, will come back to TSC after update.
    • TSC Tracker # 1635, Determine composition of TSC Nomination Committee
      • Status: Ken reviewed the three options attached to the tracker at http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1635/7602/2010ProposalforTSCElection.doc
      • options 2 and 3 require additional authority. Option 2 not preferred by Ken. Helen has concerns with #1. Calvin has already been appointed for representation on the Nominations Committee. Woody notes that the skill set sought for TSC rather than the Board is a whole new bolus of work. He suggests that the SD and Affiliate not running should automatically be on the committee unless they find a delegate within one of their member committees of the Steering Division. Ken moves to accept option three with some additional detail from the conversation. Ed seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
    • TSC Tracker # 1640, Definition of substantiveness and update of guidance documents
      • Status: There is a substantivity document in the ballot pack that need maintaining. Mead notes this document was drafted by the old ARB and has come under criticism. It fell to the new ArB by virtue of its name but they have not taken it up yet. CMy uncomfortable with the TSC taking ownership. CMd asks if it is a piece of architectural governance. Mead says it directs the kind of changes that require reballoting a document. CMd says the meaningful way to recast the document would be to note the SAIF compliant artifacts, what they look like, content and representation. Then knowing that you can identify what constitutes an substantive change. Woody says it’s simpler than that – if it causes the wireframe to change it’s a substantive change. What does it mean to deprecate the past one and when does the deprecation go away… We’ll be running into this issue with Datatypes R2 this week. There are subsequent releases of standards using DT R1 and Publishing is saying they should not be using R1. CMd notes if the question is whether the ArB has looked at it, they have not; but if the ArB needs to look at it, he will take responsibility to bring it to them. Woody notes that they doumented and balloted principles regarding versioning and sunsetting in 1998. Mead comments that perhaps they need a subcommittee to help work on it as it represents a large piece of work. Helen says the current document is quite old and really in need of attention as it doesn’t apply to all our products. Woody notes that EHR has put itself in a separate sandbox and will need to define their own rules; CDA Implementation Guides also.
      • Bob thinks the rules for substantive changes are in the GOM; Woody notes that it’s the rules for what to do when substantive changes are made.
      • MnM and ArB need to address what will be done with this document, says CMy. Mead says we’ve tasked the ArB with a great deal. Woody notes the level of detail is two generations away from what they’ve been looking at with the SAIF. They need the artifacts defined before drilling down to this detail. Woody suggests we just ask Calvin to draft a section for CDA and take it to the ArB. Calvin takes that as a motion and seconds it. Calvin moves and Helen seconds that ArB take responsibility for the substantivity document. CMd notes the letter from NCI to the board this year of separating canonical frameworks that define SAIF versus HL7’s representation of the frameworks that define SAIF. This is governance. Where is the responsibility of Architectural Governance. CMy notes the WG must take responsibility when they advance material for ballot that their material adheres to principles and doesn’t violate substantive change rules. Motion passes unanimously. Suggest ArB request from Structured Documents a section on CDA and CDA IG.
    • TSC Tracker # 1643, CMETs need ANSI updates (no ANSI update since R2!) - how to proceed?
      • Status: Woody and Karen will meet in Cambridge to talk about how to handle CMETs. Hopefully, we will have a recommendation on moving this forward by the end of next week. Woody adds that Andy Stechishin will be joining them.
    • TSC Tracker # 1647, How to proceed with NCPDP’s request for mapping to the RIM
      • Status: John waiting for resource recommendations from Bob Dolin. Bob sent the list to John.
  3. Maintenance project: obtain / publish WG updates to M&C, SWOTs and DMPs
    • Task: report Work Group Health, and Work Group Visibility
      • Requests for updates to Work Group Health - see WGH Tracker
        1. Tracker # 1569, Suggested enhancement to decouple WGM attendance from out-of-cycle meetings, that meetings conducted Out-of-Cycle be counted separately from (or not counted as) WGM attendance.
          • Woody notes RIMBAA has not had meetings at the WGM but conduct demos. Need to be cautions about saying that out of cycle meetings don’t count. Mead wouldn’t like to change the rules such that we don’t have the ability to discover whether or not in fact that there is a problem. No sense dinging a group if they have a good reason. Do not pursue.
        2. Tracker # 1572, Suggested enhancement that attendance at Steering Division Face-to-Face meetings at the Working Group Meeting should be measured as a separate metric.
          • This is a new metric. Agreed to include.
        3. TSC WGH Metrics Tracker # 1645 Suggested enhancement that attendance at conference calls be compared as a ratio against listserv subscribers to note participation.
          • Do not pursue. Jane described it as a measure of active participation versus membership.
        4. Tracker # 1649, Suggested enhancement to Add metrics to WGH for % of projects having next milestone date in the past
          • What this really says is that they have not updated project insight. Austin asks if this will be assessed against the primary WG sponsoring the project or all WG participating. Mead finds it to be a bad idea as the dates are not meaningful. CMy notes this is a project health but not WG health issue. Need to establish Project Health Metrics. Ken notes that if a committee isn’t really working on a project how to tie it to the process? Let’s get project health done then we can look at tying it to WG Health.
        5. Tracker # 1650, Suggested enhancement to Change WGH metric update for three-year plan


Recessed at 12:35pm

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

Re convened at 1:35pm

  1. Continued discussion of WGH enhancements
    • Tracker # 1650, Suggested enhancement to Change WGH metric update for three-year plan
      • You produce your three year plan, send it to Lynn, she marks the update and updates WGH accordingly. Change the metric to be that a WG has updated their three-year plan in the last 16 months.
    • Tracker # 1651, Suggested enhancement to Investigate work groups not having posted meeting minutes at WGM to revisit metrics on whether the WG has 'met'
    • In Rio, Woody noted whether they had quorum or not they still met. Helen noted the post WGM survey asks if the WG obtained quorum in most of a WG’s session. If you measure that, then you can take it off the survey.
    • Tracker # 1652, Suggested enhancement to Investigate work groups meeting minutes at WGM to establish metrics on number of active in-person participants when the WG has 'met'
      • Solve meeting minutes and quorum suggestions by cross referencing with the survey and not put it in the WGH.
    • Helen would like to see a metric on whether they responded to the co-chair survey.
      • Agreed to add that metric.
    • She’d also like to see whether the WG follows their own DMPs.
    • What if the metric was to post minutes for all telecons and WGM that were held? Lack of minutes is generally managed by complaint.
    • How many items do we need to be traffic cops for… how much time do we (meaning Lynn) invest into it. When we find that everyone is compliant all the time, we can stop measuring it.
    • Austin suggests we combine # of conference calls, # of meetings at WGM and compare to number of meeting minutes being posted, that should be measured. Woody notes when you meet weekly it’s a pain to have to document when you don’t meet, or you don’t meet quorum.
    • Lynn suggests using 75% benchmark for the minutes posted vs meeting sessions; dropping measuring the Wiki participation and the GForge participation. Helen agrees with dropping GForge and not with dropping Wiki. Wiki use should be not only HL7.org but any wiki.
    • Can use wiki for trackers instead of GForge. If we have a version control requirement at some point then we can worry about GForge.
    • Managing the columns on the WGH tracker; adding one should we drop another? If we drop one do we need to add another.
    • Are we sending the message that GForge is not a mandatory tool or necessary for all work groups?
    • Maybe want to measure whether a work group has an official documented change control process.
    • another suggestion was participation in Publishing. Should some be addressed in the next cycle.
    • We’ve heard your comments on GForge, some work groups find it useful – we’ll no longer use it as a metrick to measure WGH. GForge on WGH is sub bullet on Charlie’s talk.
    • summary: add filling in the survey as WGH metric, add to the survey if you’ve met quorum; leave meeting minutes as is.
    • useful discussion, need to manage changes to WGH, take discussion offline. Can someone propose a solution for maintaining the WGH metrics. Calvin likes this process, look at the suggestions in this forum.
  2. Task: Report Project Visibility - Project Insight # 633 for Project Services.
    • Establish process to update project status at each WGM cycle if balloting - Target: 2010SepWGM (changed from 2010May WGM) - in progress, need to document
    • Retroactively find existing projects' information from 4f: Project Document Repository Location - Target: 2010SepWGM - 79% complete
    • Develop enhancement to Project Insight Searchable Database to return URL of project-related documentation - Target: 2010SepWGM - COMPLETED
    • Develop wiki page layout example for Work Groups to use for project documentation - Target: 2010SeptemberWGM - need example, wiki resource
    • Project Archive process documented for wiki resources - Target: 2011JanWGM
    • Lynn reported the statuses above; Calvin asks if Project Health is part of this effort. CMy notes that Project Health Metrics are a next step. Can someone take on a first draft of metrics to measure for Project Health? Can someone have this for Sunday night and announce it Monday, or do we spend more time on it and announce it in Sydney? Ed asks can we graphically lay out the process, and identify the checkpoints for measuring project health? Without that it would be difficult to know what you’re measuring against. ACTION: Ken will ask Project Services to come up with a recommendation and bring it to the TSC.
  3. Task: Report Product Visibility
    • Can we tell if the hits on the wiki pages are by crawlers or by actual visitors? Need to ask Electronic Services. Lynn demonstrated the number of hits on the top ten Product pages as tracked over the past few months. Add to CHARLIE’s Agenda, product and project and work group visibility statistics.
    • Jane asks why tools are not a product? Can add to list at bottom Suggested Additions on Product List on TSC wiki page. The number of downloads of the tools is pretty high, but it’s cumulative (tracking in GForge). John raised issue if you go to the store and looking for standards you see 2010 Normative Edition. If you go to Participate, and you find 2009 Normative edition as top choice. Don said it will be fixed (but it isn’t yet).
    • When we started this a year ago, we thought the web developer was going to start posting them shortly. 12 months later, we still don’t have a web site for Products. Martopia gave us a proposal and they’ll give us a high-level description of product that we’ll review. They (Martopia) were briefed by John but are not experts and we don’t want to take on the risk that they also cannot produce this.
    • What is a product? Currently it’s the stuff in the bookstore that you can buy. Mead suggests we need more discussion as to what that entails. CMy notes that a marketing plan should include an account or reference of the products being marketed. The TSC was asked to define what the products were, here is a list. This list should inform the product strategy group, the marketing group, business planning group, etc. Ed asks if we should have a one to one match between those listed here and those on the bookstore. We don’t want to sell the RIM on its own? Jay asks are we looking to enhance the description of an HL7 product on the wiki? Is this one of the outcomes we must decide upon? Within V2 there are a bunch of links, many historical in nature. Very different from the way we do business… so we have a packaging question says Mead. You see the historical growth on implement/startds/v2messages.cfm versus the bookstore, versus the product list. Jane says it’s a business architecture. Where are we going to find the technical ability to unravel this and create a proposal for how to package it, it’s this group, the TSC. Really a task for the Product and Services Strategy project. Need to ask ourselves what we want Martopia to put out there. Woody notes the content on the RIM page from the HL7 standards page is an archive we don’t want out there. Who governs the content – should have a group having responsibility for maintaining content out there that we expose to the public. Helen notes, the TSC is responsible for product. To whom shall we delegate it? Helen feels we should establish the overall direction directly. This discussion needs to go into Product Visibility and establish accountability, and configuration and content management of product information. Ed notes we must establish relationship between things on the wiki, things in the store, and things on the standards page. Austin notes that when we get a new standard, we need to make sure we have the information necessary to publish a product. Should be when they request to publish, not at NIB. Helen asks about cleaning up old versions and draft material that does not become part of ballot standard. It is a problem with product that does not go through V3 Publishing e.g. CDA EHR etc. May need to come up with a more detailed list of issues to be addressed. Bob asks where the definitive source of truth lies, as it appears to be a maintenance nightmare. Lynn is currently maintaining in Excel/Access as well as the wiki pages.
  4. Action item TSC Tracker # 1581, Create Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review Project
    • Woody is assigned. He needs to sit down with someone else who was on the T3F and go through it.
  5. CTO Report
    • John presented CTO report. 2010NE came out in July (of the same year!). This speaks to a lot of work that Woody and the Tooling WG have done.
      • some comments on the flow arrows and boxes. Discussion on version of MIF2.0 vs 2.2. SMD actually incorporates MIF2.1.6. Tooling changes are needed to take advantage of new features in MIF2.2. The tools are not products that we turn around and sell.

Recessed at 3:15pm


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

Reconvened at 3:35 pm.

  1. CTO report continued
    • Updates to the SAIF documents are now out for peer review again.
    • At ArB tomorrow Charlie Mead noted they will specifically that it will be Service Aware not Services Aware.
    • HL7 will share requirements with NCI for Shared Artifact Repository. NCI doing this based on ARRA funding will close requirements gathering by end of year.
  2. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
    • Product Quality Plan at Project Insight # 647 - see Q1
      • Woody volunteers to assist. Austin acknowledges it’s been a bandwidth problem.
      • Add discussion to Sunday night; continue some offline discussion until then based on lack of traction in last six months. Woody notes they are delivering ability to find detectable issues while producing ballot content. Many algorithms used could also be employed to seek out quality issues for length of descriptions and other tests, if people can identify what those quality tests should be. Bob notes that IHTSDO has worked on quality plan development and hopes we can collaborate.
    • TSC Communication Strategy Project at Project Insight # 696 - Ravi
      • Status: some initial work with International Council but not much progress to report. Who will take this over when Ravi’s term expires. TSC needs to actively monitor its communication efforts; are we communicating outwards, and listening to feedback. Charlie will be speaking with Calvin about that. We should find out if he’s interested to maintain the project and we could facilitate his continued connection to the TSC resources. ACTION ITEM: Charlie will check up in 2 weeks with Ravi on willingness to continue to facilitate the project.
    • Innovations Project at Project Insight # 701 - Ed
      • Status: meeting scheduled Q3 and Q4 on Monday. They are looking at discussion on process to establish for managing innovations. He has requested update on each Innovation project we’ve seen to day (Jan and May 2010); received one response. He’ll send out a reminder note tonight. Also will discuss the branding/incubator prospect. They’ll likely evaluate this process going forward. Jane asks if there is money is coming in, does it make sense to throw some of it at an innovations project? When budgets are tight, innovations are important to find new quicker ways of doing things, notes CMy.
    • Product Visibility at Project Insight # 478
      • associated Product Strategy Project (Project Insight # 413)
      • discussed earlier
    • T3F Strategic Initiative Review
  3. How often to request reports to the TSC on TSC-sponsored projects?
    • come back to later on, or deal with on conference call. Bring some recommendations.
  4. What do we do with project facilitators on TSC projects whose terms end in 2010?
    • Ravi – Communication Strategy
    • Helen for ORC
    • Revisit on Tuesday, ORC meeting Q4 Monday, Tuesday lunch discuss appointments etc.
    • EA IP project at Project Insight # 469-
      • Action item: Calvin and Charlie Mead will have something for a list of the components that need to be governed for review in Cambridge. (From 2010-09-20_TSC_Call_Minutes)
      • See http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1648/7575/SAEAFGovernanceTSC.pptx
      • Status:Calvin addressed the powerpoint. Copied from Jane’s governance material, down from 75 slides to 12 slides.
      • The broader scope is that we need a really clear message to Work Groups to cochairs on Monday night on where we see the organization going in terms of EA IP, what responsibilities, what happens in the Work Groups to realize the benefit of Work group.
      • Calvin’s scope was much smaller, to address governance material.
      • Governance has been repeatedly addressed as key component to move forward. After 30 mins we can address agenda setting for Sunday night to gain a clear answer for Monday.
      • Patrick discusses four boxes as two axes of content vs transport to manage the three interoperability paradigm issue.
      • Must choose one of two checkboxes on slide 6; Woody notes there may different choices depending on which chapter of SAIF you’re addressing. May or may not be a single choice organization-wide.
      • point 1 of slide 8 is an existing problem, for domain ownership. Ron notes the shared health domain is difficult where lab interacts with pharmacy etc. Ron notes there isn’t anything on CIM level on this slide. Mapping from TOGAF to requirements and then looked at what SAIF could do, we found framing requirements in EHR-S FM functional profile was very effective. Adopted FM statements and made FP. Need that kind of traceability of requirements. Helen notes in EHR there are groups coming up with functional profiles that are actually building data structures instead. EHR-S FM will not expose requirements that were the primary motivations behind many V2, V3 and CDA specs.
      • Woody notes work groups may not work on all levels, but stop at PI specifications. Tool builders that turn the crank that make the specs need to be in the governance process. Woody notes the objective eof ITS is to separate platform independent from implementable model.
      • Charlie notes if ISO Datatypes is an example where platform specific model could become the source of truth, and the platform independent model shall factor that. Communities of other ISO stakeholders want to take the normative specification as definitive.
      • Slide 9 on traceability in two dimensions on governance needs traceability to artifact as well as governance authority, and allows constraints for localizations at multiple levels. Austin notes this doesn’t capture consistency across domains only across viewpoints.
      • Groups build reference artifacts (RIM, DT, Vocab) across domain groups and interop paradigms. Governance must ensure conformance.
      • spell check change prospective to perspective slide 11, replace all SAEAF or SEAEF to SAIF.
      • localization lines seem to conflate profiling as well as mapping, which are logically distinct. Feedback/editing loop necessary. CIC and EHR out of the loop if they stay strictly at CIM level. Ron reminds us that the SAIF stack is not an enterprise architecture, but implementers need to be aware of it. Localization might have different governance for realm vs domain vs RMIM.
      • CMd says localization is a type of compliance. Formal accepted ISO definition of compliance as ‘transform between source and target’ and usually are constraining. Second point is that ECCF does not define process, it provides perspectives and components that can be part of a process. There are not clean lines between the levels of abstraction. SAIF is about explicitness. Jane adds that a single artifact can cover more than one cell. Columns are not artifact categorizations but viewpoints and an artifact can cover multiple viewpoints. CMd notes that Ken Buetow mandated to NCI in January they were adopting SAIF, then he left. They looked at one another and said “What happens now?”. Need a clearly defined scope of where we’re applying SAIF. NCI is applying to enterprise service development. Now recognizing governance, and recognizing they cannot provide governance in a ‘perfect world’, but looked at life cycle and evaluated areas of biggest risk. Their areas of interest were the development silos like HL7 Work Groups. Had to pick areas across the life cycle not just up front. Needed a RACI chart for every artifact and set up a body to do the governing. NCI’s biggest mistake? No change management program.
        • Most important needs –
          1. scope
          2. risk assessment,
          3. change management,
          4. clearly defined artifacts
        • all simultaneous number one priorities.
      • Austin recommends focusing projects around those rather than SAIF alpha projects. Mead feels we should start with scope and radically reduce the scope, choosing a particular problem and try to solve that problem, especially in our volunteer environment. CMd says it wouldn’t have happened had it not been mandated. Even with their restriction on scope in enterprise services they had to re-cast our business architecture.
      • Need to better define acronyms – CIM is computationally independent model, though it’s at the conceptual level it’s not the conceptual information model. P for platform is the more bitter contention.
  5. Set agenda for Sunday night. Need clear message to Working Group.
    • What are the problems today that we’d like fixed. Use SAIF to try to fix it. Austin nominates cross-domain consistency as one problem child. Jane notes it was a business driver for building SAIF in the first place, and she’d volunteer to help facilitate. Calvin offers architecture including methodology and processes need definition and coherence between messaging and CDA.
    • Need to look at EA IP, expectations set up, assess what’s been done and put it to bed.
    • Take scope/ risk assessment /value proposition piece at look at the change management issues. And what does that mean for subsequent meetings this week and follow on activities. 15 min at beginning for wrap up of existing EA IP stuff. 1.25 hours for substantive discussion about the scope/risk assessment etc. People need to come prepared with clear ideas. Needs offline discussion tomorrow. 30 min at end for subsequent work planning including message and agenda setting for rest of WGM.
  6. Harmonization review of tension with balloting, wiki page has been linked, so close as an issue.
  7. ArB membership review move to Tuesday.

Adjourned 5:10PM EDT.


Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Action: Charlie to raise the issue of JIC project that hasn’t had HL7 approval to the International Council. Lynn to add to the agenda for Activities with Other SDOs Sunday Q4.
  • ACTION: Ken will ask Project Services to come up with a Project Health metrics recommendation and bring it to the TSC.
  • ArB request from Structured Documents a section for the substantivity on CDA and CDA IG
  • Charlie will check up in 2 weeks with Ravi on willingness to continue to facilitate the TSC Communications project.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  1. ArB (move to Tuesday)
    • Action Item #1322 - ArB membership needs to be reviewed and re-confirmed biannually starting with this upcoming WGM.
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-10-02_TSC_WGM_Minutes&oldid=7148"