Difference between revisions of "2011-06-27 TSC Call Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
{{:TSC Meetings}}
+
   [[Category:2011 TSC Minutes]]
   [[Category:2011 TSC Minutes|Agenda Template]]
 
  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
Line 24: Line 23:
 
|width="0%"|'''Affiliation'''
 
|width="0%"|'''Affiliation'''
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
+
| ||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
 
|?||Bob Dolin||HL7 Board Chair
 
|?||Bob Dolin||HL7 Board Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Tony Julian||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
+
|x||Tony Julian||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Austin Kreisler||HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
+
|x||Austin Kreisler||HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Lynn Laakso ||HL7 staff support
+
|x||Lynn Laakso ||HL7 staff support
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Patrick Loyd|| HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
+
|x||Patrick Loyd|| HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Ken McCaslin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
+
|regrets||Ken McCaslin||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB Chair
+
|x||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternate
+
| ||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternate
 
|-
 
|-
|?||John Quinn||HL7 CTO
+
|x||John Quinn||HL7 CTO
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
+
|regrets||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Ed Tripp||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
+
|x ||Ed Tripp||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Jay Zimmerman || HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Jay Zimmerman || HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || ||  
 
| || ||  
Line 64: Line 63:
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
|-
 
|-
|colspan="3" |'''Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: '''(yes/No)
+
|colspan="3" |'''Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: '''yes
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
Line 71: Line 70:
 
#Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 
#Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 
#Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
 
#Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
#Approve Minutes
+
#Approve Minutes - [http://hl7t3f.org/wiki/index.php?title=2011-06-20_TSC_Call_Agenda 2011-06-20]
 
#Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=494 action items] –
 
#Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=494 action items] –
 +
#*Action items from WGM
 +
#**Calvin to check with the Cochairs of Structured Documents on naming for what title they want to use when they go beyond DSTU for an Implementation Guide.
 +
#**Austin and Patrick will check on the 2.x side on an implementation profile term.
 +
#**Patrick will look for his mapping of NCPDP to the RIM and let us know.
 
<!--              -->
 
<!--              -->
 
<!--    Approvals  -->
 
<!--    Approvals  -->
Line 79: Line 82:
 
<!--  Discussion  -->
 
<!--  Discussion  -->
 
#Discussion topics:  
 
#Discussion topics:  
 +
#*Will we be meeting next week, July 4th?
 +
#*TSC Communication Strategy at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=696 Project Insight ID # 696]
 +
#*Review of Ballot Guidance post-2011May WGM - see [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6330/8445/BallotGuidance_post2011MayWGM.doc draft document] and Project Services [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/wg/projectServices/HL7%20PS%20-%20Electronic%20Ballot%20Chart%20-%20Final.pdf balloting guidance chart].
 +
#*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6329/8444/TSC_Strategic_Initiatives_20110531.doc TSC Strategic Initiative Dashboard measures] project planning
 +
#*Do we want to give the Publishing Work Group the authority to pull content from ballot if it does not meet publishing requirements? (Austin)
 
#Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
 
#Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
 
<!-- #WGM Planning - -->
 
<!-- #WGM Planning - -->
Line 86: Line 94:
 
'''Supporting Documents'''<br/>
 
'''Supporting Documents'''<br/>
 
*See links
 
*See links
 +
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 +
#Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) none identified; Charlie Mead gives an ArB report and leaves the call.
 +
#Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
 +
#*Defer TSC SI dashboard measures to next meeting. Agenda approved by general consent.
 +
#Approve Minutes - [http://hl7t3f.org/wiki/index.php?title=2011-06-20_TSC_Call_Agenda 2011-06-20]
 +
#*'''Vote: ''' unanimously approved.
 +
#Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=494 action items] –
 +
#*Action items from WGM
 +
#**Calvin to check with the Cochairs of Structured Documents on naming for what title they want to use when they go beyond DSTU for an Implementation Guide.
 +
#**:Austin reports that on last Thursday’s call is that they want to keep the name Implementation Guide, not change it. They suggested either tacking on normative standard status or DSTU rather than changing the name of the documents. He also reported that O&O had a discussion on this as well. Patrick noted that O&O’s discussion also came up with the same desire to not change names but to clearly mark normative and non-normative material sections of a document. The term IG has really stuck. Ravi asks if we have IP rights on such terminology as Implementation Guide as SNOMED is also coming out with Implementation Guides. Terminology like MIF is known to be HL7 specific. Patrick notes that the term when used in the industry is a well understood concept and we don’t want to lose the familiarity and the expectations that have been set. Ravi notes that the label being human friendly we must focus on standardization of the contents of an IG. Austin notes that CGIT also wants to talk with him on implementation and conformance issues. 
 +
#**Austin and Patrick will check on the 2.x side on an implementation profile term. (see above)
 +
#**Patrick will look for his mapping of NCPDP to the RIM and let us know. He is looking through old material up to five years so this is in progress. John suggests he talk to Scott.
 +
<!--              -->
 +
<!--  Discussion  -->
 +
#Discussion topics:
 +
#*Will we be meeting next week, July 4th? We will not plan on meeting. Tongue in cheek, John offers apologies to our British member. Next call is the 11th.
 +
#*TSC Communication Strategy at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=696 Project Insight ID # 696]
 +
#**From an affiliate’s view there’s quite a bit of information in the various streams but Ravi is not able to give enough attention to it. Austin notes that in Orlando it seemed that it was not a pressing need. Ravi moves to consider closing the communication strategy project, Patrick seconds.
 +
#**'''Vote: '''  Unanimously approved.
 +
#*Review of Ballot Guidance post-2011May WGM - see [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6330/8445/BallotGuidance_post2011MayWGM.doc draft document] and Project Services [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/wg/projectServices/HL7%20PS%20-%20Electronic%20Ballot%20Chart%20-%20Final.pdf balloting guidance chart].
 +
#** We don’t want to lose the name (see discussion above). Ed suggests we update the cover page to indicate what the material is, normative or informative. Austin cautions that we want people to know which path we’re going down when they set up their project scope statement. Would we use ‘Implementation Guide: Normative’ and ‘Implementation Guide: Informative’. Would we need ‘Implementation Guide: DSTU’? Need language that normative must have a constraint on an existing standard. DSTU should say the same thing as it’s on a normative track. Must note that a normative IG can include non-normative content. Ravi asks about publishing when you have normative and non-normative content, what will be needed. Austin notes that most of them are standalone documents and don’t use the V3 tooling. Need to have publishing weigh in and indicate how they should be addressed. ACTION ITEM: Austin will talk to publishing and take a crack at updating the guidance document.
 +
#**Next steps, Need to merge this information with the electronic ballot chart with a revised section and new appendix to the cochairs handbook.
 +
#*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6329/8444/TSC_Strategic_Initiatives_20110531.doc TSC Strategic Initiative Dashboard measures] project planning
 +
#**Action item to develop scope statement, Austin has a first draft for John to comment upon so may review in committee on the 11th.
 +
#*Do we want to give the Publishing Work Group the authority to pull content from ballot if it does not meet publishing requirements? (Austin)
 +
#**Austin notes that publishing considered creating a quality dashboard for each item being balloted to report its suitability for V3 publishing. Question arose if Publishing should be authorized to pull content of things that cannot be published from going through the ballot. Ravi feels we should not. Consequence is that material will ballot that is not ready to be published. Ed thinks we might restrict it for some types of things. Ravi says Publishing can report to the TSC the dashboard statistics and the TSC can decide if it should go to ballot. The current cutoff date in V3 publishing exists but is not hard and fast. Ed agrees that Publishing can report to the TSC the items that are not suitable for ballot. Ravi adds that Publishing should develop the ballot publication criteria. Austin suggests that after the TSC approves what might go to ballot, that Publishing might report those items that don’t meet the criteria. Ravi asks if the Publishing report should go to the Work Groups first or directly to the TSC. If the Steering Divisions were to take responsibility for forwarding that fitness to criteria it might be not timely enough. For this cycle perhaps we give them a warning and then put this in place for the next cycle. Calvin notes that if they are being evaluated on certain tools they need to have access to that testing toolkit. Austin notes that the existing publishing toolkit should be used by the work groups; Calvin notes that if work groups are not using it they should be advised that this is the methodology by which it will be evaluated. Ravi suggests we look at the publishing facilitator more closely on these projects. The field is not always filled in at the time of the project scope statement Austin notes. Austin will ask Publishing to have something to review for the end of this ballot cycle – the ballot material cutoff date is the time when the quality of their content should be reviewed and their warning issued that in future this quality of material will not be permitted to ballot.
 +
#Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
 +
#*Charlie reports the ArB is on track for balloting SAIF book as DSTU, and cannot stay for the call.
  
 
'''''Please don't forget to hang up from the conference call '' (VOIP users)'''
 
 
===Next Steps===
 
===Next Steps===
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
* .
+
* Austin will talk to publishing and take a crack at updating the guidance document.
 +
*Austin will ask Publishing to have something to review for the end of this ballot cycle – the ballot material cutoff date is the time when the quality of their content should be reviewed and their warning issued that in future this quality of material will not be permitted to ballot..
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
*.
+
*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6329/8444/TSC_Strategic_Initiatives_20110531.doc TSC Strategic Initiative Dashboard measures] project planning
 +
*[[2011-07-11 TSC Call Agenda]]
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 16:28, 11 July 2011

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

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

Date: 2011-06-27
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
? Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
x Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
regrets Ken McCaslin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
regrets Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Jay Zimmerman HL7 Affiliate Representative


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 - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes - 2011-06-20
  4. Review action items
    • Action items from WGM
      • Calvin to check with the Cochairs of Structured Documents on naming for what title they want to use when they go beyond DSTU for an Implementation Guide.
      • Austin and Patrick will check on the 2.x side on an implementation profile term.
      • Patrick will look for his mapping of NCPDP to the RIM and let us know.
  5. Approval items:
  6. Discussion topics:
  7. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  8. Open Issues List


Supporting Documents

  • See links

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) none identified; Charlie Mead gives an ArB report and leaves the call.
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
    • Defer TSC SI dashboard measures to next meeting. Agenda approved by general consent.
  3. Approve Minutes - 2011-06-20
    • Vote: unanimously approved.
  4. Review action items
    • Action items from WGM
      • Calvin to check with the Cochairs of Structured Documents on naming for what title they want to use when they go beyond DSTU for an Implementation Guide.
        Austin reports that on last Thursday’s call is that they want to keep the name Implementation Guide, not change it. They suggested either tacking on normative standard status or DSTU rather than changing the name of the documents. He also reported that O&O had a discussion on this as well. Patrick noted that O&O’s discussion also came up with the same desire to not change names but to clearly mark normative and non-normative material sections of a document. The term IG has really stuck. Ravi asks if we have IP rights on such terminology as Implementation Guide as SNOMED is also coming out with Implementation Guides. Terminology like MIF is known to be HL7 specific. Patrick notes that the term when used in the industry is a well understood concept and we don’t want to lose the familiarity and the expectations that have been set. Ravi notes that the label being human friendly we must focus on standardization of the contents of an IG. Austin notes that CGIT also wants to talk with him on implementation and conformance issues.
      • Austin and Patrick will check on the 2.x side on an implementation profile term. (see above)
      • Patrick will look for his mapping of NCPDP to the RIM and let us know. He is looking through old material up to five years so this is in progress. John suggests he talk to Scott.
  5. Discussion topics:
    • Will we be meeting next week, July 4th? We will not plan on meeting. Tongue in cheek, John offers apologies to our British member. Next call is the 11th.
    • TSC Communication Strategy at Project Insight ID # 696
      • From an affiliate’s view there’s quite a bit of information in the various streams but Ravi is not able to give enough attention to it. Austin notes that in Orlando it seemed that it was not a pressing need. Ravi moves to consider closing the communication strategy project, Patrick seconds.
      • Vote: Unanimously approved.
    • Review of Ballot Guidance post-2011May WGM - see draft document and Project Services balloting guidance chart.
      • We don’t want to lose the name (see discussion above). Ed suggests we update the cover page to indicate what the material is, normative or informative. Austin cautions that we want people to know which path we’re going down when they set up their project scope statement. Would we use ‘Implementation Guide: Normative’ and ‘Implementation Guide: Informative’. Would we need ‘Implementation Guide: DSTU’? Need language that normative must have a constraint on an existing standard. DSTU should say the same thing as it’s on a normative track. Must note that a normative IG can include non-normative content. Ravi asks about publishing when you have normative and non-normative content, what will be needed. Austin notes that most of them are standalone documents and don’t use the V3 tooling. Need to have publishing weigh in and indicate how they should be addressed. ACTION ITEM: Austin will talk to publishing and take a crack at updating the guidance document.
      • Next steps, Need to merge this information with the electronic ballot chart with a revised section and new appendix to the cochairs handbook.
    • TSC Strategic Initiative Dashboard measures project planning
      • Action item to develop scope statement, Austin has a first draft for John to comment upon so may review in committee on the 11th.
    • Do we want to give the Publishing Work Group the authority to pull content from ballot if it does not meet publishing requirements? (Austin)
      • Austin notes that publishing considered creating a quality dashboard for each item being balloted to report its suitability for V3 publishing. Question arose if Publishing should be authorized to pull content of things that cannot be published from going through the ballot. Ravi feels we should not. Consequence is that material will ballot that is not ready to be published. Ed thinks we might restrict it for some types of things. Ravi says Publishing can report to the TSC the dashboard statistics and the TSC can decide if it should go to ballot. The current cutoff date in V3 publishing exists but is not hard and fast. Ed agrees that Publishing can report to the TSC the items that are not suitable for ballot. Ravi adds that Publishing should develop the ballot publication criteria. Austin suggests that after the TSC approves what might go to ballot, that Publishing might report those items that don’t meet the criteria. Ravi asks if the Publishing report should go to the Work Groups first or directly to the TSC. If the Steering Divisions were to take responsibility for forwarding that fitness to criteria it might be not timely enough. For this cycle perhaps we give them a warning and then put this in place for the next cycle. Calvin notes that if they are being evaluated on certain tools they need to have access to that testing toolkit. Austin notes that the existing publishing toolkit should be used by the work groups; Calvin notes that if work groups are not using it they should be advised that this is the methodology by which it will be evaluated. Ravi suggests we look at the publishing facilitator more closely on these projects. The field is not always filled in at the time of the project scope statement Austin notes. Austin will ask Publishing to have something to review for the end of this ballot cycle – the ballot material cutoff date is the time when the quality of their content should be reviewed and their warning issued that in future this quality of material will not be permitted to ballot.
  6. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Charlie reports the ArB is on track for balloting SAIF book as DSTU, and cannot stay for the call.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Austin will talk to publishing and take a crack at updating the guidance document.
  • Austin will ask Publishing to have something to review for the end of this ballot cycle – the ballot material cutoff date is the time when the quality of their content should be reviewed and their warning issued that in future this quality of material will not be permitted to ballot..
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items