Difference between revisions of "2012-09-08 TSC WGM Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 162: Line 162:
 
#*wiki metric has been dropped, close 2173
 
#*wiki metric has been dropped, close 2173
  
 +
 +
===Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm===
 +
Reconvene 11:10 AM EDT
 +
#Set deadline for V3 Governance Task force - have recommendations by end of October.
 +
#Risk Assessment Project
 +
#*Review and update [http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/tsc/projects.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=901 Risk Assessment PSS]
 +
#**BAM has already started to identify some risks that should feed into the risk assessment project, which the TSC will use to form Precepts, Roles, Processes and Metrics to feed into the BAM. TSC will take candidate risks, prioritize them, and then identify the Precepts, Roles, Processes and Metrics to act as governance points for managing those risks. Project scope statements updated. Scope broader but shallower. Jane advocates that existing project 901 closure and opening a new project would indicate change in responsibilities (source of authority, level of delegation) from subproject of the architecture to a project of the TSC. General feeling is comfortable with leaving it as 901. '''Motion: ''' Calvin moves and Ed seconds the amended project scope statement.  '''Vote: '''unanimously approved
 +
#**This will go out as approved "in-committee"  and go to co- and affiliate- chairs for review.
 +
#**Need to identify project team and set up first meeting;  Jane is facilitator. All of TSC is involved, which is why we shifted management approvals to e-vote, to discuss this on the calls. Wiki page set up http://hl7tsc.org/wiki/index.php?title=TSC_Risk_Assessment.
 +
#*TSC's Risk Assessment Methodology
 +
#**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6950/9638/GovernanceOverview--20120517.docx Results of Vancouver Weds Q4 governance workshop] sought on the wildernesses of various hard drives. Charlie reviews key slides from the [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6886/9490/TSC-Governance-June2012.pptx June Presentation].  Extension of the mapping in page 9 of the presentation, and relationship between Management and Methodology discussed. Metrics, and consistency of measuring, are usually part of methodology
 +
#**Thomas Erl's 11 step development process equivocated to HL7 development reviewed from page 5. Erl's 32 candidate precepts applied to different steps in the process. Candidate matrix may be useful to deciding what will be governed and what will govern it.
 +
 +
 +
Recessed 12:35 AM EDT
  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  

Revision as of 16:36, 8 September 2012

TSC Saturday meeting for 2012 Sep Plenary and WGM, Baltimore MD USA

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Annapolis Room

Date: 2012-09-08
Time: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EDT
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
regrets Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
Q2 Jane Curry HL7 Risk Assessment Project Facilitator
regrets Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative-elect
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, Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
? Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x 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 Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-chair-elect
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-chair-elect
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
regrets Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp Invited Guest, ITS Datatypes discussion
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Governance

Q1 - Governance : 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Governance
    • TSC V3 Governance/Product Line Task Force
      • Establish task force goals and timeline
      • Establish task force membership
  5. Work Group Health metric tracker review
    • Project Health metric to be incorporated into WGH in place of 3 yr plan metric (#2346)
    • Recommend metric for WG facilitator participation in WGM Sunday training, tutorials and Thursday roundtable (#2295)
    • measure projects completed versus active (#2167)


Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Risk Assessment Project
    • Review and update Risk Assessment PSS
    • TSC's Risk Assessment Methodology
    • Input into Risk Assessment
      • Strategic Initiatives
      • Formalizing Product Lines
      • TSC and other work group SWOT's
  2. Identify Governance Points based on Risk Assessment
  3. Planning for TSC Governance project

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard metric review

Q4 - Management: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. HQMF out of cycle ballot request
  2. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  3. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  4. Tooling Strategy/Plan Review

Sunday

    • ArB Business Architecture Modeling Project

Tuesday lunch

  1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Schedule:
      (September) Review TSC SWOT

Supporting Documents

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests), Paul is invited to discuss Datatypes, Melva invited as co-chair-elect.
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: HQMF out of cycle ballot, move Jane to Q2 and move WGH to Q1.
  3. Woody moves adding Melva as ad-hoc member for International Affiliate representation. Seconded by Ed, the motion passes unanimously.
  4. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  5. Governance
    • TSC V3 Governance/Product Line Task Force
      • Top priority for task force to make recommendation on V3 Data Types issue.
      • Charlie notes we need to scope V3 for this task force. Austin hopes that anything that asserts that it is V3 is provisionally in scope. Freida suggests the task force decide it. Charlie notes that Datatypes is definitely part of the product line so address the immediate problem and let it figure that out iteratively. As an instance of a larger issue Paul suggests to define it as that problem, punt it to the task force, then receive their recommendation and go forward.
      • Austin notes that Mead offers his regrets for the weekend but volunteers to be on the task force. He would like to see this task force also acting as the start of the V3 product line.
      • Messages, Documents, all RIM-based work like RIMBAA and Services. Ron notes attributes of the product lines may include reference to RIM but not require RIM-basis as definition of a product line.
      • Woody notes that since '97 all standards should be based on the common RIM and Datatypes and terminology to distinguish V2. CDA R1 was self-asserted as the first V3 standard. Issue at stake is "what is THE datatypes structure for the RIM?" It represents the foundation of V3.
      • Change is more than applying ITSs to the communities. It's a business and implementation problem, not a technical problem, notes Paul.
      • Paul adds they get questions for how to change slightly what ITS does, users want to use their 'stuff' but modify it slightly. Charlie notes it breaks interoperability, and cites an example from Oracle. Companies offer support for past versions for a while and then move forward. NCI committed moving forward with ISO 21090 as wire format. You'll also disenfranchise those that pre-adopted aspects of R2 informally like Canada, adds Paul. Those using ISO datatypes even if completely separate from the use of HL7, such as was asserted for Pharma in Europe. Ron notes if CEN 251 declares that they must use a certain standard, it is done. The question is whether HL7 will fork away from 21090, revert back to R2B.
      • Task force needs to identify what is in, what is out of R2B, set up a table, and send it out to confirm understanding. Paul suggests they consider whether R2B is one solution, seeking others. Austin notes we don't know the delta between R1/R2.
      • Goals: three deltas - R1/R2 - R1/R2B - R2B/R2 (one of the three can be derived from the other two). R2B-to R2 is main issue.
      • Second goal is understanding penetration of ISO datatypes: Scope of effect of the business decision to be made, and effect on those who pre-adopted aspects of R2 informally. Paul notes we need to know "the rub" - what the effects are.
      • Goal: If forking is the path, which forking option is taken, and what are the costs. Breaking change proposals have been adopted in the past, some in the RIM, some in Datatypes, some rejected (wrappers), notes Woody. Part of V3 product line governance is risk assessment including the impact of forking.
      • Woody observes we must offer a mandate, guidance, or request to WGs developing standards, in dealing with the presence of the R2B…Deliverable: Implications to Work Groups
      • Goal: cost and implications on forking
      • Deliverable: identify paths, make recommendation of action going forward, and consider scope of effect.
      • Calvin asks if there is a statement or value proposition for when it is appropriate to consider breaking backwards compatibility. Need a policy. Paul notes there is one for V2, but not for V3. No wire-format backwards compatibility requirement exists, notes Woody. V3 has semantic backwards compatibility but not wire notes Austin. Paul describes it as a request for something that HL7 has a declared policy that we will not do; you can declare it out of scope.
      • Woody says we need a statement of how V3 backward compatibility is expressed. CDA used the version as of date of publication and declared it frozen.
      • Calvin notes he's not ready to declare it out of scope as we need the value proposition to evaluate. Ron notes that these assertions are governance precepts. Woody states that annual packages of normative editions may constitute versions or releases and may need to evaluate the strategy of the normative edition release.
      • Woody describes processible specifications as a goal from many years ago that would not require intermediate programming to use the standards for implementations. This may still be important for the future. We have to accommodate more rapid change.
      • Who's on the group? Mead, Woody, Charlie, John, Pat, Paul. International representation, Austin notes, can be requested in tomorrow's meeting. Charlie notes that BRIDG needs representation and describes BRIDG's binding versus NCI's binding history. Woody notes we need Lloyd or Grahame but with Lloyd's history on the white paper he might be more accessible though Paul adds that Grahame has the best feel for the datatypes delta, and consideration for FHIR datatypes. Ron notes Ravi was very concerned but as he's not here, Melva may be a good conduit to solicit participation.
      • List: Mead, Woody, Charlie, John, Pat, Paul, Lloyd, Ravi, and anyone Melva solicits. Grahame's participation would be welcome. Woody would be willing to serve as co-chair, as would Charlie. They will need to coordinate a time and get with Lillian to get a room. Wednesday lunch is proposed.
  6. Work Group Health metric tracker review
    • Project Health metric to be incorporated into WGH in place of 3 yr plan metric (#2346)
      • Review PBS Metrics
      • Ed moves approval of this metric rather than the 3yr plan metric. Freida seconds and suggests some tweaks e.g ArB, Ed accepts amendments.
      • ArB should be exempt from the 3-yr plan requirement, list n/a on PBS Metrics. Tooling is similar in its direction as it is provided by the organization as compared to self-defined. Ed sees Board of Directors, Marketing, TSC in addition. Austin cautions against exempting any work groups that belong to a Steering Division. Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Recommend metric for WG facilitator participation in WGM Sunday training, tutorials and Thursday roundtable (#2295)
      • Woody notes facilitator participation on Thursday nights are pretty consistent and generally have those that are needed to attend. Is the issue more about the WG having facilitators, and have they received training.
    • measure projects completed versus active (#2167) - problematic to measure with different approaches to using project scopes. Freida notes master and subordinate projects are being evaluated by Project Services. Ed adds the definition of a project is very nebulous.
    • Agendas published in advance may be a metric not only for the Strategic Initiative but could add to the WGH. Room requests and meeting minutes have a deadline. Let's look at it as part of the SI Dashboard rather than as WGH.
    • wiki metric has been dropped, close 2173


Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Reconvene 11:10 AM EDT

  1. Set deadline for V3 Governance Task force - have recommendations by end of October.
  2. Risk Assessment Project
    • Review and update Risk Assessment PSS
      • BAM has already started to identify some risks that should feed into the risk assessment project, which the TSC will use to form Precepts, Roles, Processes and Metrics to feed into the BAM. TSC will take candidate risks, prioritize them, and then identify the Precepts, Roles, Processes and Metrics to act as governance points for managing those risks. Project scope statements updated. Scope broader but shallower. Jane advocates that existing project 901 closure and opening a new project would indicate change in responsibilities (source of authority, level of delegation) from subproject of the architecture to a project of the TSC. General feeling is comfortable with leaving it as 901. Motion: Calvin moves and Ed seconds the amended project scope statement. Vote: unanimously approved
      • This will go out as approved "in-committee" and go to co- and affiliate- chairs for review.
      • Need to identify project team and set up first meeting; Jane is facilitator. All of TSC is involved, which is why we shifted management approvals to e-vote, to discuss this on the calls. Wiki page set up http://hl7tsc.org/wiki/index.php?title=TSC_Risk_Assessment.
    • TSC's Risk Assessment Methodology
      • Results of Vancouver Weds Q4 governance workshop sought on the wildernesses of various hard drives. Charlie reviews key slides from the June Presentation. Extension of the mapping in page 9 of the presentation, and relationship between Management and Methodology discussed. Metrics, and consistency of measuring, are usually part of methodology
      • Thomas Erl's 11 step development process equivocated to HL7 development reviewed from page 5. Erl's 32 candidate precepts applied to different steps in the process. Candidate matrix may be useful to deciding what will be governed and what will govern it.


Recessed 12:35 AM EDT

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