2016-09-18 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Sunday meeting for Baltimore WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2016-09-18
Time: 5:15 PM Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Woody Beeler TSC Member Emeritus
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Gora Datta HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x Russ Hamm HL7 FTSD Co-chair
Stan Huff HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler Adhoc Member
Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Sandra Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
Pat Van Dyke HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Jane Millar
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)
  1. IHTSDO Developer License Announcement (Jane Millar)
  2. ArB
  3. BAM
  4. FHIR
  5. European eHealth projects (Giorgio)

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Called to order at 5:15 PM Eastern
  • Jane Millar from IHTSDO here to present on collaboration with HL7 in advance of her presentation at the co-chair dinner tomorrow evening.
    • Group recommends leaving out the affiliate development content for co-chair dinner
    • She won’t stay after for the cochair dinner but will be available to be contacted for questions.
  • FHIR update
    • Lloyd McKenzie here to update.
    • Connectathon was the biggest ever – around 170 people. Will have to figure out what to do for next meeting because the room is too small.
    • 700 ballot comments on core spec and 600-ish for IGs.
    • Comments have evolved to be more about domain content and less about infrastructure.
    • Tentative publication date of end of the year. Will go over target deadlines on Monday night. Substantive change freeze 11/27; final content freeze following week. WGs can provide feedback until Wednesday on feasibility.
    • STU 4: Would be looking to ballot no sooner than 2017Sep, no later than 2018Jan. Hoping that some of the content will be normative at the level of pages, resource, or profile. Other content will not be normative. Decision on level will be based on maturity metrics. Lloyd explains maturity model. As we move into mixed content, balloting as a whole will be a challenge – how do we manage through normal ballot processes? Differentiating what is normative or not will need some kind of mechanism. Lorraine notes v3 is published with mixed content. Austin notes CMETs are similar. Will need to be clear in our ballot instructions at the front.
    • Lloyd notes that there is a strong opinion that they want this ballot to be the last one done with spreadsheets. Too many circumstances where content is put in the wrong place that is not valid and needs to be fixed. Have talked to Wayne to start evaluating Jira, but that’s only part of the process – doesn’t fix the spreadsheet issue.
    • There was general discussion about doing away with ballots entirely. ANSI requirements do not necessarily require balloting. ***Lorraine notes that Karen states that you have to have a defined period for comment and response for a defined pool.
      • Andy notes that ANSI requires that you follow the procedure you’ve outlined, and our procedure in the GOM is balloting.
      • Melva asks why stop balloting? Lloyd: Tracker provides continuous feedback; benefit of balloting is not immediately obvious.
      • Noted that we need something that looks like a ballot for normative, but could do something different for STU.
      • Austin: STU update would be much quicker and more agile. Then you could simply ballot the normative content.
      • Andy: Ballot process is part of what HL7 is and provides stamp of HL7 certification. The value is that government organizations can look at the thing and say they’ve done their due diligence and it has value.
      • Lloyd: No question that whatever process that we come up with allows the organization to do due diligence. The question is whether balloting is the sole mechanism for HL7 to do due diligence.
      • Freida: From a cultural perspective, sometimes people don’t get engaged in making comments until it gets to normative. You would be able to use the update process to avoid STU ballots and move at a different pace.
      • Paul: There’s a difference in quality for those things that don’t have complete periodic review.
      • Lloyd: We have a continuous integration version that changes 50 times a day. But in general the implementer community wants a stable version to work with over a period of time. Want less emphasis on waiting to ballot to submit comments; want community to provide ongoing feedback instead.
      • Ken: I think there is a need for that formal process.
      • Lorraine: Continuous feedback is useful, but having those schedule times is a good motivator to submit.
      • Paul: We have a continuous feedback mechanism through trackers. If we’re going to do a periodic review it still seems to be like a ballot – not sure what’s different.
      • John: It’s important to keep processes as consistent as possible throughout the organization. If we have two separate ballot processes, one for FHIR and one for everyone else, it creates inconsistency.
      • Lloyd: I don’t think the changes we’re looking at are specific to FHIR. Would look to pilot first.
      • Melva: We need to examine how to move this forward if we’re going to – conversation needs to happen across all ballots.
      • Ken: We would create a project scope statement to move forward as is our procedure. Should be initiated by the group that would make the pilot work.
      • Melva would like to also see broader engagement. Jean asks that the TSC be updated early and often. Discussion over potential cosponsors and interested parties. John suggests running it on a smaller project or run it with FHIR at the same time.
  • ARB and BAM will be pushed to conference call.
  • Giorgio will report on Thursday
  • Adjourned at 6:27 pm Eastern.

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