2013-07-31 TRAC

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 15:30, 31 July 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes

back to TRAC page

Meeting Info/Attendees

TRAC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 660-939-197

Date: 2013-07-31
Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum n/a
Chair/CTO Members Members
x Pat Van Dyke x Rick Haddorff x Melva Peters
John Quinn x Austin Kreisler


  • Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
  • Review minutes of 2013-07-10 TRAC
  • Action Items:
    • Pat will work on developing a straw man for separate criteria for informative ballot reconciliation in 6 months, for example.
  • Governance Point development see
  • updated spreadsheet
    • referred item on precept for a statement on whether an R2 project supersedes prior releases.
  • Continue reviewing the Risks that Melva identified from the survey


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Risks to organization surfacing that need to know how to mitigate. WG with standards emerging for S&I Framework where scope statements have not gone through approval processes, having reservations on the content of the standards from other WGs. Political risk to damage reputation with ONC if delayed, and damage reputation with international community if allowed to ballot.
    • Process issue - WG sent PSS to Dave Hamill but not to SSD SD or SD Co-chairs. Risk: moving items through approval process. Show up late in approval though since projects were created in PI they were able to create NIBs. Melva notes that Dave reports the PSS are due by one date, and the date for approval by the SDs is also communicated and that date was not made.
    • Issue is the WG working in a silo focused on meeting S&I needs and not working with rest of HL7. Other concerns that their work will conflict with other S&I work in eMeasures on DT. Risk is that silo-based standards don't work well with other HL7 standards.
    • DAM project updates a ballot from May in which implementation constraints are defined in a document described as a DAM that was balloted under an old Project ID that was not subject to the project approval process. This illustrates the need for the project approval process. One mitigation strategy is to more tightly bind the project approval process to refresh and reapprove new ballot content after some period of time. Melva adds an issue with the way SSD SD does their vote.
    • Austin notes that product family architecture is another mitigation, with a product manager responsible for looking at the portfolio.
    • The ability to slip this through the project approval process on an old project is a big problem. Big projects that have many items go through are a risk.
    • Product manager needed for whom it is their job to manage this. The current project management system has 'holes' in it.
    • Mitigation to educate project facilitators and WG co-chairs that they are responsible to bird dog the projects through the approval process.
    • Co-chair measures on whether they show up at the TSC dinner and at the following SD meeting might be a mitigation.
    • Reviewing project 1016, defining the use of a standard "on the wire" is an ITS. Mostly we have ITSes for V3 standards managed by ITS WG, also XML encoding and traditional encoding in V2 handled through InM. They jumped directly from the conceptual model in a DAM to an implementable model of an ITS without a logical model. They also indicate universal realm, when their requirements are from the US Realm. If they move the checkbox to US Realm is one piece of the problem. They're still in conflict with other US Realm work for eMeasures.
    • How do they easily modify the PSS? Firewall this to US Realm specific, and require a separate project for universal realm? DAM R2 publication has objection to publication from FTSD. May not want to permit publication beyond DSTU until UV realm accommodated.
    • Issue of risk - want to accommodate ONC timelines but material is unsuitable. Ballot project has not followed appropriate process. Austin convening task force to address the question.
    • May need to require projects to be more granular and re-reviewing older or larger-scoped projects.
    • Austin notes we've hit a vitality trigger with this event.
  • Meet next week and continue review of the mitigation strategies - Melva on vacation next two weeks. Austin asks Pat to invite Ken to join the group.

Adjourned 10:59 AM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Agenda topic for the first call in August: Firm up what we want to have deliverable at the Sept WGM