2014-09-13 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 15:39, 13 September 2014 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting for 2014September Plenary and WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Conference Room 5E

Date: 2014-09-13
Time: 9 AM-5 PM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Vice Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Stan Huff HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSC Chair, Ad-Hoc
Don Mon HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes)


Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  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. Strategic Initiative review
  5. SWOT review
  6. Product Line Architecture
    • Proposed V2.x Product Family definition
  7. Telecon Meeting schedule in October (skip Sep 22nd, also cancel the 6th (ISO), 13th (Holiday) of October?)

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

TSC Review and Planning

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  3. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  4. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  5. 2015 Project Scope Statement final review (if needed)

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

TSC Project Review

  1. Strategic Initiative Review
  2. updates to our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance. (Tracker 3283)
  3. TSC position statement on new projects using R2B - Woody
  4. TRAC update
  5. Discuss S&I Portfolio and obtain feedback for Feik (Knapp)

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Project scope statement TEMPLATE for 2015 from Project Services of T3SD at TSC Tracker 3502, with list of changes

  • Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)

E-vote from this week

Architecture and Tooling:

  1. V2.x Tutorial Workshop Development for Education WG cosponsored by Tooling WG of T3SD atProject 1060 and TSC Tracker 3133.
    • Budget implications from requirements gathering
  2. (Electronic Services and) Tooling

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Convene 10:01 AM - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Freida will add the updated PSS template
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Strategic Initiative review - the Board strategic initiatives have not been developed in a way suitable for review. There are three but they are not prioritized and expectations set. Postpone until the updated initiatives are ready for review.
  5. SWOT review
    • Strength for support on Work Group members; could also be threat to lose that support or opportunity to gain more. Melva suggests that we add a weakness that we have support but still sometimes we don't get the support we need by the Board and members.
    • Weakness for bringing in external standards - S&I, IHE, HITSB; US Realm TF is addressing. Needs to be further refined. Most of what is coming in is not purely adopted from external development but proposed. UDI/GS1 discussed. Sometimes it is starting a new group.
    • Threat of IP at no cost has dissipated as the revenues have recovered states Calvin. Giorgio points out that the financial considerations are not really a TSC level. Calvin suggests we remove it.
    • Product quality: still an opportunity or a weakness. More of a process quality weakness states Paul. Opportunities to fix problems sound more like weaknesses. If there's not a current problem perhaps it is a threat notes JohnR. Lynn notes that it's been punted to TRAC and lacks momentum. Paul defines Process quality including consistent application of process to methodology. Calvin notes that CCDA implementation in EHRs around the US is revealing perceptions of quality problems with too much optionality etc and it is a threat.
    • vitality assessment and triggers remain an opportunity - Austin notes that it has not been disseminated into the organization outside TSC/ARB.
    • Threat: Increased mandates from US Realm could be both threat and opportunity notes Calvin. Increased uptake by national programs would be the opportunity
    • Threat - keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
    • New member benefits, user groups and AID discussed. They may convert to user group by may
    • Motion: Jean moves and Woody seconds updated SWOT.
    • well established profiling activity needs to be developed for FHIR notes Calvin. Governance and support of profile creation as well as publishing support to maintain activity notes Woody. Freida notes if we expect profiles to complete the 20% not defined by FHIR core and there is an agency positioning themselves as the responsible party for the realm for profiles in that realm. Paul notes that anyone can create profiles it's the governance and curation of the profiles that is at issue. The registry requirements may allow crowdsourcing the curation notes Lorraine. Curate and manage processes around the artifacts would be a lost opportunity if HL7 does not retain control. Freida notes that in the Innovations effort there were crowdsourcing efforts described but the HL7 vetted products would have a formal HL7 endorsement. Paul suggests governance and physical support for emerging standards and processes will fall to others if HL7 does not maintain control. Lorraine suggests we will not have adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage uptake of standards and resulting profiles created in the industry. Further discussion reflected on wiki page.
    • Vote: unanimously approved
    • Ken asks for individuals to take on each of these threats.
      • Overhead is an overall TSC issue; also look at things that we have been doing in the past to see if we still need to do them e.g. WGH measures. Austin suggests that if TRAC is already doing risk assessment for the TSC should we be assigning a report back from TRAC. Bringing the FHIR risks out in this discussion will be refreshing a source of risks for TRAC in Weaknesses and Threats. Anything that needs a mitigation plan needs to go through TRAC notes Austin. Calvin asks about creating a forum for TRAC to report back to the TSC. Pat notes we need a repeatable process for TRAC to go through to set the props under the committee. Pat notes we will go through the feedback on weaknesses and threats at the next meeting but there is a TRAC update in Q3. We will add TRAC to upcoming meetings in Q1 or 2.
  6. Product Line Architecture
    • Proposed V2.x Product Family definition; punted to the sidelines based on whether V2.9 changes cutoff date has been set and whether it would be pursued as a continuous maintenance process.
    • Calvin asks what the process for proposing a Product Family is? It would be a TSC process which has not been exercised yet but would be based on the first two chapters of the BAM.
    • Calvin notes the CDA R2 IG product family should also be addressed.
    • JohnQ notes that FHIR work with various V2 chapter editors to establish what needs to be in FHIR. It is acting as a force of change across all product families. LOI and LRI may be looking at developing FHIR APIs. New stuff coming back is starting to redefine existing stuff and when grabbing existing definitions off the shelf and interpreting them differently than the V2 chapter editors would like. TSC needs to be aware of the tensions between the WGs.
    • We have a loose definition with de facto governance, management and methodology for V2 publishing already with V2 Publishing as the management group. Do we make it formal?
    • Lynn notes a centralized product governance group would be a place for that discussion to happen - which may be the TSC or another group. FGB is trail blazing on the governance area but would they roll in.
    • Jean notes that FGB and FMG were experimenting with the development of the governance structure. If it works why wouldn't we use it elsewhere.
    • Calvin suggests that with a new product family a separate governance group might exist but as it matures it moves into a centralized governance group.
    • Overarching governance board needs representation from structural, external stakeholders, and a broad viewpoint notes Lorraine.
    • Woody notes that TSC already has a governance and management role. We created FGB and FMG - are we creating another level between product families and TSC? He thought governance is TSC's responsibility. Paul feels we would collapse future plans for governance boards down to a single governance board. With new things we might spin off a task force to set up and integrate into existing governance processes. Jean agrees the TSC is the ultimate governance body and FGB is a body we spun off but reports to the TSC. FMG is the de facto FHIR WG. If we do retroactive continuity changing (ret-con) and incorporate FGB into a central governance group.
    • V2: management is V2 publishing. Governance had ARB for substantive change but otherwise TSC.
    • Do we want to shoehorn the product governance into the existing governance section of the TSC agenda or appoint a sub-body to meet separately and work on product governance, asks Lynn.
    • Calvin feels it would have to be a delegated group from this group and we need to start socializing the concept and move towards it as FHIR stabilizes. Then we need to set up management of product families.
    • Ken summarizes the plan to set up a Governance group separate from but reporting directly to the TSC across all product families. Do we expand the FGB across the organization or create a separate one and roll FGB in?

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