2015-03-23 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 21:08, 24 March 2015 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2015-03-23
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian x Jean Duteau .
x John Quinn Regrets Lorraine Constable . Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
Regrets Melva Peters Regrets Woody Beeler x Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
. x Russ Hamm . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote x Craig Gabron, Attachments WG x Anita Walden x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote x MaryKay McDaniel, PLA/BAM x Austin Kreisler .

. . . . .



  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2015-03-16 TSC Call Agenda
  4. Homework
    • Proposed changes to GOM from ArB:
    09.01 The Technical Steering Committee (TSC)
    A Technical Steering Committee (TSC) shall be established to facilitate the coordination and activities of the Working Group. It shall be comprised of the Co-Chairs from each of the four Steering Divisions (SD), two Affiliate representatives, and appropriate HL7 staff. The SD Co-Chairs shall share a single vote at the TSC for the purposes of formal motions; but otherwise both will be fully participating members of the TSC. The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) as well as the ARB Chair and Vice Chair Co-Chairs of the Architecture Review Board (ARB) shall be ex officio members with vote. The ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs shall share a single vote on formal motions.
    09.03.01 Composition
    The ARB shall have a Chair and Vice Chair two Co-Chairs, who shall continue the business of the ARB in the Chair’s absence, appointed by the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with the approval of the TSC. The ARB shall have such additional members as deemed appropriate by the CTO, ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs to support productivity and task load based on the availability of willing candidates with appropriate skill sets subject to TSC approval.
    There shall be no formal constraints or requirements for representation of any Work Group, Steering Division, or Organizational or Affiliate member. ARB candidates shall be chosen by the CTO, ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs. The TSC shall ensure that appointments to the ARB are consistent with the goals and objectives currently defined for the ARB and best serve the interests and responsibilities of HL7. While it is desirable that the ARB be representative of all the various communities involved in HL7, the CTO and TSC formally acknowledge that the primary criteria for ARB membership are qualifications and commitment of time and effort.
    The ARB may, at its discretion, solicit the contribution of specific expertise in support of its activities by inviting select individuals to participate as ad hoc members with vote for the term of the specific activity or project.
    09.03.02 Criteria for Membership Qualifications
    Candidates for membership in the ARB must recognize the importance of, and have a commitment to, enterprise architecture as a critical success factor for HL7. They must be current members of HL7 or an HL7 Affiliate with strong written and verbal communication skills and expertise in at least one, but preferably both, of the following areas as assessed by the CTO:
    1. Large scale enterprise-level architecture contexts with a focus on achieving working interoperability between software components/interfaces in both intra- and inter-enterprise contexts. Interoperability contexts include both traditional “messaging” exchanges of static semantics as well as more complex, multi-component scenarios involving both static semantics and dynamic behavioral interactions.
    2. HL7 “core infrastructure” components including complex data types, vocabulary binding, structured documents, methodology and modeling, infrastructure and messaging, implementation and conformance, etc. Commitment
    Candidates shall provide documentation of support for their participation on the ARB from their employers or a like statement of their personal commitment if individual members of HL7. Members of the ARB are expected to:
    a. participate in 75% of weekly conference calls
    a. Attend a majority of weekly conference calls.
    b. dedicate 6 - 10 hours each week, in addition to conference calls, to ArB deliverables
    b. demonstrate active participation through some combination of the following:
    Meaningful contribution to deliverables through authoring , modeling or review.
    Individuals provide expertise that can be drawn upon when needed.
    c. attend at least two of the three Working Group Meetings each year
    The CTO of HL7 may, at his/her discretion, grant a waiver of the WGM attendance requirement to any ARB member in good standing who has encountered hardship (e.g. lack of funding) in attending Working Group meetings provided either or are met. Trial Participation
    Candidates wishing to be considered for full membership in the ARB may be expected or invited to participate in ARB discussions as ad hoc individuals prior to becoming a full member to ensure their ability to meet the expected commitments and demonstrate the appropriate qualifications. This will allow ‘new’ HL7 members to fully participate in the ARB and contribute to the work even if they are not yet personally known by the CTO, ARB Chair or Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs.
    09.03.03 Term of Membership
    The CTO, ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs shall consider staggering appointments to the ARB to ensure continuity of knowledge of recent history and ongoing goals and objectives of the ARB.
    ' ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs'
    There shall be no limit on the duration of service of the ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs subject to the approval of the TSC. Other Members
    All members of the ARB shall serve a two year term from date of appointment, without term limits, subject to renewal at the discretion of the CTO, ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs with the approval of the TSC. Notification of Renewal
    The CTO shall provide two months’ notice to the HL7 membership and HL7 Affiliates when certain ARB appointments are subject to renewal. Comments relevant to the renewal action may be submitted during this period for consideration by the CTO, ARB Chair and Vice Chair ARB Co-Chairs prior to making their recommendations on renewal to the TSC.
    09.03.05 Removal of Member
    Any ARB member who – in the opinion of the CTO, ARB Chair or Vice Chair or ARB Co-Chairs -- is unable to satisfy the expected commitment based on both meeting attendance records and general effectiveness of participation may, with approval by the TSC, be removed from the ARB at any point during their term.
    09.03.06 Conduct of Meetings
    All ARB meetings shall be open to any interested party. Minutes shall be taken at all meetings and posted on the ARB wiki. HL7 and the SDO community in general are free to comment, criticize, or raise additional issues.


  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:


  1. Review action items
  2. Approval items from last week's e-vote for discussion:
    • Project Approval Request for Bipolar and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Domain Model by the CIC WG of DESD at Project Insight 1144 and TSC Tracker 3764 - now on updated template
    • Issues raised:
      • Would like explanation on the following statement: 'The goal is to create a new standard but if time permits we may also consider creating a Mental Health DAM that will include the previous DAMs for Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder.' (Pat)
  3. Approval items (for discussion):
    • FHIR request for extension of deadline to submit reconciliation package for draft for comment ballot
  4. Discussion topics:
    • Proposed changes to the GOM by ArB
    • Wiki review of FHIR Balloting Process Pilot - Comment period ended Friday
    • Attachments Collaboration Project (Paul)
    • WG Co-Chairs Not Working Within Process (Paul, John Roberts, Melva, Pat)
    • FHIR Ballot Reconciliation Process (Lorraine/Paul)
  5. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  6. Open Issues List


  • Meeting minutes from 2015-03-16 accepted by general consent.
  • Paul would like to add UDI task force to agenda if time permits.
  • HL7 Standards Governance Board Mission & Charter Draft: Paul goes through slides showing the HL7 governance model flowchart for the group’s review. Ken: is there a relationship to marketing director? That person should have a role on the governance group. Austin: Yes, product line should have marketing involved, but not product family. Paul: that would be more a management level role rather than governance. Pat: Would there be items that are consistent across the families, i.e., naming conventions, which would provide cohesiveness and consistency across families? Paul: yes, there will be domain and methodological things that we’ll attempt to achieve consistency with. Ken: This is standards governance board. Should it say HL7 governance board so as not to be too narrow? Paul: we used the term standards because we needed to qualify it. (It is called the HL7 Standards and Governance Board on the M&C.) Paul reviews proposed structure of group – 9 voting members and presiding chair – followed by next steps. Ken: The May meeting might be too soon – needs to be a lot of socialization. May need 3 quarters or so to achieve solid transition. Mary Kay – do we have anything in a written form that is an organizational communication plan? Ken: this is a substantial change to behavior and we need to have a unique plan for this because it requires more communications than our typical rollout. Make sure that we know all the places where we need to be having review/education/feedback. Pat: we need to see May as a regular WG meeting despite concerns on attendance – it is still a good opportunity for socialization. Timeline to be determined by PLA and reviewed by TSC.
  • FHIR balloting wiki review ended on Friday. Austin reports comments were received and they are working on getting resolutions voted on during Wednesday’s FMG call.
  • Changes to GOM from ArB: Tony gives high level description of changes. Ken states that we’ll take a motion on this next week. Ken: do we need to go all the way up to the CTO? Could co-chairs have that authority? Tony: CTO is charged to come up with members of ArB, so we thought it would be appropriate (in section John Q. describes history of giving the CTO that role. Frieda comments that the waiver process was in lieu of dismissing the WGM requirement entirely. Question remains if this could be co-chairs.
  • Craig Gabron here to discuss Attachments PSSes. PI 1155 needs approval to go to ballot.
    • MOTION: Paul moves to accept both projects, second by John R.
    • VOTE: In favor: all. None opposed/abstained.
  • Project 1144 - Anita Walden present for questions and addresses Pat’s question regarding the Mental Health DAM.
    • MOTION: Pat moves to accept project; John R. seconds.
    • VOTE: In favor: all. None opposed/abstained.
  • FCWG approval: ArB and FTSD have approved – review for next week.
  • UDI task force – meeting with other SDOs tomorrow. Can we have a project with other SDOs where we produce a brief paper describing how we will capture UDI in an interoperable way? Ken: it’s a great idea and doesn’t see a problem with it, but who would own that? SDO relationships fall under John and Chuck. O&O and ITS would be appropriate WGs to own it.
    • MOTION: Paul moves that UDI task force be approved to engage in discussions and development of material to describe how each of the SDOs convey UDI. Calvin seconds.
    • VOTE: In favor: all. None opposed/abstained.
  • FMG has decided to ballot DSTU in May. Dropped the quality criteria – ballot again in September to catch up material. Anne to put on agenda for next week.

Call adjourned at 12:07 pm

Next Steps

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

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.