Difference between revisions of "2014-09-17 TSC WGM Agenda"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 39: Line 39:
|x||Paul Knapp||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
|x||Paul Knapp||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
|resigned||Austin Kreisler (Chair)||HL7 Ad-hoc member
|resigned||Austin Kreisler ||HL7 Ad-hoc member
|?||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ
|?||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ

Latest revision as of 19:58, 17 September 2014

TSC Wednesday Luncheon meeting for 2014Sep WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Conference Room 4L

Date: 2014-09-17
Time: 12:30 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
regrets Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Vice Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Katherine Duteau visitor
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
? Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
resigned Austin Kreisler HL7 Ad-hoc member
? Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
? Ken McCaslin TSC Chair
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
? John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
John Feikema (Feik) ONC S&I Framework
x Helen Stevens
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

  1. Work Group Health "RED" status - CGIT
  2. Help Desk WG Priorization Process (Ken)
  3. Review feedback on S&I portfolio (Feikema)
  4. Paris 2015May WGM - Ken
  5. e-vote results: approved 7/0/0 with Ad-hoc, 2 Affiliate, ARB, DESD, SSD SD and T3SD voting

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Convene 12:43 by Ken

  1. Help Desk WG Prioritization Process (Ken)
    • Was the liaison removed from the process document intentionally? Member discussion supports intent to allow WGs to name a liaison instead of a cochair.
    • Help desk would email the WG cochairs plus a liaison. Review definition of liaison for responsibility for acknowledgement of assignment of help desk support issue to the WG, but not necessarily responsible for providing the answer, as defined on page 4 of the policy document. Need to resend the document back out to the WGs once re-ratified.
    • Motion: restore liaison role back to the process and recirculate the document, by Jean second by Woody. Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Melva notes the DESD feedback that it looked like there was a great deal of thought put into it and they were willing to try it.
    • Verbiage on "expert response" and "SME" definition in the document reviewed. Woody notes that some issues may rely on expert advice only and some may need to be referred to a consensus agreement. Some questions may be answered by an individual in the WG having expertise, and some may require expert opinion plus consensus. Calvin asks who determines whether a consensus review is needed. Probably is the review of the expert opinion by the WG to determine. Paul asks if the Expert Response is an SME, a work group consensus, or both? Expert based on material the question is about.
    • Motion: Paul moves inclusion of Expert in the document, seconded by Melva.
    • Jean asks how it fits into the initial response timeline and how the initial response sets the response complexity level and timeline.
    • John asks about the changes in capitalization Expert Response, response, "expert process". Expert is the capitalized term.
    • ACTION ITEM: Jean will make the edits and Woody will review the updates
    • Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Freida makes editing suggestions.
    • Bring updated document back to TSC on Sep 29 before rolling it out over the next two weeks following TSC endorsement. Trigger will be the Help Desk Manager requesting liaisons, and Diego can also include the updated process document in his request as the operational handoff. Need to send back liaison names within the couple weeks following.
  2. Need generic email for HL7 Help Desk. Need also email for Diego in his role as help desk administrator? Diego wants the emails to go to helpdesk@hl7.org so everyone gets the emails and those on duty would respond. Woody is concerned that emails on how help desk process responses such as "we were assigned issue X, we have some further concerns" and wish to ensure he is able to separate the basic questions coming for help desk on where to find the RIM.
  3. Work Group Health "RED" status - CGIT - no representatives though Paul invited them. Frank is at the WGM and Wendy is not. Ken reports that Frank doesn't care about WGH and whether the WG is meeting their metrics is none of our business. Key resources (Wendy) had their participation curtailed. Paul notes that his discussion with Frank was very different. Wendy's email to Ken was apologetic to her inability to meet the responsibilities and she has not run for re-election as a cochair. Jean notes that his sympathy for those that abruptly stop participation in a leadership role when their funding/support is removed when he and others are self-funded and commit to completing those responsibilities regardless.
  4. Paris 2015May WGM - Ken
    • Desire to have plenary session at Paris meeting like in September, again on Monday. Suggestion to move the TSC/cochair dinner following Board meeting on Tuesday. May be plenary presentations both Monday and Tuesday preventing Q1/Q2 WG meetings on those days.
    • Helen shows the proposed schedule impacts: Welcome Reception Q4 and 5 on Sunday.
    • Melva asks why two mornings of plenary instead of a full day of plenary. They want to encourage those attending the morning plenaries to also attend the WG meetings in the afternoons.
    • Wednesday networking reception might be Monday night
    • Monday/Tuesday plenary sessions are currently being billed as Policy Plenary
    • Woody recounts the challenge with adding another plenary in addition to the September meeting, and making it two days; it compresses the available time on the most available day for WG members to meet.
    • Paul suggests you allow Tuesday to be parallel track for WGs to meet during the Tuesday PM plenary. TSC could also approve WGs (FHIR) to meet during Monday AM.
    • Woody suggests if you hold a plenary in May, to not have a plenary in September.
    • Expecting high number of first time attendees/ one time attendees for "special" agendas for Monday and Tuesday afternoons.
      • Paul agrees you might put project review and scope at beginning of the agendas on Monday and Tuesday and defer the reconciliation topics to later in the agenda.
      • Tony notes the WG often goes over the whole WG agenda for the week and setting the schedule.
      • Leave off three-year plan, SWOT and other administrivia from the "special" agendas.
      • Woody suggests "newbie-friendly" agenda planning instead of discouraged agenda topics.

(Freida and Calvin leaves 1:30)

  • Paul reports on UDI, V2 stuff gone through, GS1 fine with braces layout worked out for them and have signed off on that process document. FDA was present. They will go forward with more work and need meeting space in January and will likely continue in Paris. We will need to figure out how to make that request. Ken thanks Paul for the work he's put in on the topic.
  • Paul reports there was a petition discussed on creating RDF WG for semantic web ontology - activity centered in W3C previously. The WG topic is too narrow right now, but ITS has reached out and attempted to bring them into. Charlie McCay and Claude Nanjo were pulled in and agreed to go back to their organizations to make a project inside ITS.
  • Paul notes SDWG yesterday had issue with normative ballot IG containing tasks, elements, sections etc. Regulatory activity related to task 1 and 3 and don't want to refer to portions of a document. How do we take portions out as a normative document? Must they go back to ballot or is there a peer review process, etc that can be followed.
    • Woody notes it seems reasonable and is technically feasible but publishing may have challenges and provenance to the whole document.
    • DCM resolved the subset issue by reducing the scope of the project. Extracting a portion of the document for separate publication is not directly relatable.
    • Need to have guidance from Karen/HQ on what ANSI rules would be, if they only just peer reviewed the subset instead of another ballot. How do we make an ANSI-recognizable identifier in this case.

  1. e-vote results: approved 7/0/0 with Ad-hoc, 2 Affiliate, ARB, DESD, SSD SD and T3SD voting

Adjourned 1:44 PM

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