Difference between revisions of "2012-01-17 TSC WGM Minutes"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (moved 2012-01-17 TSC WGM Agenda to 2012-01-17 TSC WGM Minutes: minutes approved with technical correction)
Latest revision as of 17:28, 6 February 2012
TSC Tuesday luncheon meeting for 2012January WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes
|HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Time: 12:30PM - 1:30 pm CST
|Facilitator: Austin Kreisler||Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso|
|x||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair|
|x||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair|
|Bob Dolin||HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)|
|x||Freida Hall||HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair|
|Chuck Jaffe||HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)|
|x||Tony Julian||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair|
|x||Austin Kreisler (Chair)||HL7 TSC Chair|
|x||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ|
|regrets||Patrick Loyd||HL7 T3SD Co-Chair|
|regrets||Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB Chair|
|Don Mon||HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)|
|regrets||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate Representative|
|x||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternate|
|x||Helen Stevens||Ad Hoc member|
|John Quinn||HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)|
|regrets||Ed Tripp||HL7 DESD Co-Chair|
|x||Pat Van Dyke||HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair|
|x||Mead Walker||HL7 DESD Co-Chair|
|Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes|
- WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
- (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter
- (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
- (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
- (May) Review TSC Communications Plan
- (September) Review TSC SWOT
- Future of Process Improvement Committee
Austin called the meeting to order at 12:48 PM
- Timebox administrative items on 3 minutes each.
- M&C reviewed.
- MOTION: Helen moves approve the existing M&C with the secretary to review GOM sections for accuracy. Second by Woody. VOTE: Unanimously approved.
- Suggestion around electronic voting rules; minimum three days discussion before vote commences which is a minimum of a week. It does not allow for closing the vote early as soon as we have quorum. D) the electronic vote time period will be announced with the announcement of the motion. We could alternately use the Board's electronic vote period. Alternately in C) once seconded the voting period will start. The Board has two days discussion period with minimum of three days for the ballot - recommend this include in the announcement. MOTION: Woody moves we adopt as amended; Helen seconds. VOTE: Unanimously approved.
- Open discussion - Steering Division business
- Pat notes that at SSD the WGH health concern over the immediate last ballot cycle participation is measured. Helen felt it was encouraging the wrong thing. Suggestions for the past three cycles' participation (current and past two) be the criteria. MOTION: Pat moves, Freida seconds. Mead thinks it should not be a measure at all. It was noted that cosponsors do get credit. Lynn will have to back-fill the measure for the next cycle. Calvin calls the question. VOTE: Unanimously approved.
- Freida reports that Education in T3SD wanted to find out if there was a way to find out who had implemented certain standards? Perhaps a survey of the membership? Something at HIMSS to collect implementation references? There is an issue of cross-references to the paid memberships versus unlicensed implementations. Mead notes that the TSC should endorse the idea, but who would implement it? Woody cautions against asking people at HIMSS, as we're trying to encourage new membership. Mead suggests a solicitation to the corporate members. Lynn notes that the product briefs reviewed by the steward Work Groups did provide some references for implementations and case studies. Helen cautions some disclaimer that any implementations are an example and not an exhaustive list. Calvin suggests benefactors should have first dibs to be listed as implementations. ACTION ITEM: Austin will talk with John, Mark and Karen on what is being done in this space and bring it back to discuss later.
- Helen notes the International Council is putting together a communications plan; problem identified that projects are being advanced without outreach to other countries for interest. Austin asks why they're not bringing this up as the projects are being brought up. Woody asks if there are particular examples with certain work groups - concern with S&I framework projects as US Realm. Question that asks why is that a problem? Concern is with kicking things out quickly to satisfy a single stakeholder group? Mead notes there are multiple approaches with starting in a realm and then internationalizing something once already produced. Woody asks if other work is not being entertained because of the US Realm work? Helen cites CDA IGs that are US Realm that feel they don't have time to assess universal realm requirements right now. Austin agrees that it is an issue right now. Helen notes that when it's sent out to the Affiliate chairs it's already tagged as a US Realm. Part of the communication strategy is to inform the affiliate chairs that they have the right to push back on work tagged as US Realm or for any reason. The International Council did not name a representative on Sunday but hopes to on Thursday. Calvin notes that some of that work is funded by the US Government.
- Pat talks about a project on RM-ES in EHR, where they agreed that the US needed to have something done now, but Richard D-H listed the areas he was concerned with and they will get back to him
- Mead noted that the DESD discussed PBS Metrics where their project counts were felt to be inaccurate. 3 year plan items also count with the projects whose next milestone date in the past. The issue and process of three year plans was revisited with lively discussion.
Adjourned 1:34 PM CST.
- Adjourned hh:mm am/pm (timezone).
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|