2016-11-28 TSC Call Agenda

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: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829		Date: 2016-11-28 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	.	Jean Duteau	x	Austin Kreisler
x	Wayne Kubick	x	Lorraine Constable	x	Giorgio Cangioli	.	Freida Hall, GOM Expert
.		.		.		.	Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus
Domain Experts		Foundation and Technology		Structure and Semantic Design		Technical and Support Services
Regrets	Melva Peters	.	Russ Hamm	x	Calvin Beebe	x	Andy Stechishin
x	John Roberts	x	Paul Knapp	x	Gora Datta	.	Sandra Stuart
.		.		.		.
ex officio		Invited Guests		Observers		HL7 Staff
.	Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote	.		.	obs1	x	Anne Wizauer
.	Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote	.	.	.	obs2	.
.		.		.	.	.

Agenda

1. Housekeeping
   
   • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
   • Agenda review and approval -
   • Approve Minutes of 2016-11-21 TSC Call Agenda
2. Review action items –
   • Calvin/Gora to send project 1295 back through SSD-SD e-vote because of naming issue
     • 1295 approved by SSD-SD
     • TSC Vote:
   • Freida will talk to project services about how to manage the issue/add process to indicate when DSTU expiration is intentional
   • Discuss how to communicate separation of concerns on upcoming call. Paul asks for people to think about examples of where we see violations of the principle.
     • Anne to find excerpt of the conversation from past minutes to add clarity
       • From 11/07 minutes: Paul walks group through the document prepared by ARB and SGB. Ken mentions diagram presented by PLA and asks if it was hierarchical. Paul replies that no, it was flow. Wayne: The question is how well is it understood throughout the community - it's about communication, education, awareness. An example was conflicts people may have representing HL7 interests vs. client/employer interests. Paul: The intent is to protect all the parties. Sometimes we put too many hats on a person and they can't wear all those hats with equal quality; can't respond to all masters equally. Wayne: The action is how do we communicate/increase awareness of this? ACTION: Discuss how to communicate on next week's call. Paul asks for people to think about examples of where we see violations of the principle.
   • John Roberts to draft "lack of clear relationship between user groups and work groups" from SWOT as an opportunity (previously listed as a threat)
3. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 5/0/0 with Austin, DESD, T3SD, Giorgio and Wayne voting:
   • Project Approval Request from the EHR WG of the SSD-SD for Reaffirmation: HL7 EHR-System Pharmacist/Pharmacy Provider Functional Profile, R1 - US Realm at Project Insight 1282 and TSC Tracker 12368
   • STU Extension Request from the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 at Project Insight 1005 and TSC Tracker 12369
   • STU to Normative Notification by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Questionnaire Response Document at Project Insight 977 and TSC Tracker 12370
   • STU to Normative Notification by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Form Definition Document at Project Insight 976 and TSC Tracker 12371
4. Approval items for this week:
   • Review and Approval of Updates to the 2017 Project Scope Statement for 2017 (see here for summary of edits)
5. Discussion topics:
   • Report from Paul, Calvin, Melva on requirements for logging issues/comments across standards with associated powerpoint
   • Continue TSC SWOT Review
   • Identifying and communicating essential rules (Wayne)
6. Open Issues List

Minutes

• Housekeeping
  
  • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  • No visitors
  • Agenda review and approval -
    • No additions
  • Approve Minutes of 2016-11-21 TSC Call Agenda
    • Minutes approved via general consent
• Review action items –
  • Calvin/Gora to send project 1295 back through SSD-SD e-vote because of naming issue
    • 1295 approved by SSD-SD
    • TSC Vote on 1295:
    • MOTION to approve the project as well as its inclusion in the ballot: Calvin/Paul
    • VOTE: all in favor
    • Paul reports on project 1265: WG has not yet approved the resources and then will be on the FMG agenda on Wednesday.
      • ACTION: Anne to put on TSC agenda for 12/5
    • FHIR publication schedule: Paul reports that the publication date has been moved from December to late Feb/early March. Some IGs are being balloted this round. Freeze will happen on the 4th. Will continue modifying materials with ballot resolution due by 2/5; final content in by 2/19. Question to consider for the future: If there are substantive changes made on unballoted materials in this intervening time, there won't be a mechanism for peer review. Lorraine: We've got a large backlog of ballot comments that WGs are still working on, so we moved publication to February. Question is the application of changes from tracker items that have come separate from ballot comments and how they affect the publication. We do similar things with DSTU comments on other things. Should compare with what we do for C-CDA. Like V3 in the way we ballot content but like V2 in the way we ballot the spec.
  • Freida will talk to project services about how to manage the issue/add process to indicate when DSTU expiration is intentional
    • Add for next week
  • Discuss how to communicate separation of concerns on upcoming call. Paul asks for people to think about examples of where we see violations of the principle.
    • Anne to find excerpt of the conversation from past minutes to add clarity
      • From 11/07 minutes: Paul walks group through the document prepared by ARB and SGB. Ken mentions diagram presented by PLA and asks if it was hierarchical. Paul replies that no, it was flow. Wayne: The question is how well is it understood throughout the community - it's about communication, education, awareness. An example was conflicts people may have representing HL7 interests vs. client/employer interests. Paul: The intent is to protect all the parties. Sometimes we put too many hats on a person and they can't wear all those hats with equal quality; can't respond to all masters equally. Wayne: The action is how do we communicate/increase awareness of this? ACTION: Discuss how to communicate on next week's call. Paul asks for people to think about examples of where we see violations of the principle.
        • How do we increase awareness/communicate it? Paul: It shows up already in many of our operating principles. Is it a cochair announcement topic, enews, Anne's report? And how do we find it in the future? Paul: We're putting up a section on SGB for materials and we could put it there. From cochair perspective, they should be made aware. Wayne: Maybe we should create a page like the resources page. We could discuss at WGM. Paul: Yes, we could add the definition of substantive change and other items. Part of the problem is our reliance on static documents. Ken: cochair handbook is updated every September. Wayne: But that doesn't allow for fluid updates with material like this. When we approve something we want it to become part of the culture. Perhaps we have an update page.
          • ACTION: Add to January WGM agenda and reach out to PIC (Ken will follow up with PIC)
  • John Roberts to draft "lack of clear relationship between user groups and work groups" from SWOT as an opportunity (previously listed as a threat)
    • Group reviews John Roberts' report regarding current user group pilot. Ken suggests punting to the board to discover their intention with user groups.
      • ACTION: Wayne to put in report to the board and ask for clarity on what HL7 wants from user groups
• Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 5/0/0 with Austin, DESD, T3SD, Giorgio and Wayne voting:
  • Project Approval Request from the EHR WG of the SSD-SD for Reaffirmation: HL7 EHR-System Pharmacist/Pharmacy Provider Functional Profile, R1 - US Realm at Project Insight 1282 and TSC Tracker 12368
  • STU Extension Request from the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 at Project Insight 1005 and TSC Tracker 12369
  • STU to Normative Notification by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Questionnaire Response Document at Project Insight 977 and TSC Tracker 12370
  • STU to Normative Notification by the Structured Docs WG of the SSD-SD for Form Definition Document at Project Insight 976 and TSC Tracker 12371
• Approval items for this week:
  • Review and Approval of Updates to the 2017 Project Scope Statement for 2017 (see here for summary of edits)
• Discussion topics:
  • Report from Paul, Calvin, Melva on requirements for logging issues/comments across standards with associated powerpoint
    • Group reviews powerpoint.
    • Anyone can put an issue in who creates an account; membership not necessary. Co-chairs manage the issues when they come in and resolve them.
    • Project coming forward from publishing group to move off of V2 update requests and make it a gforge tracker item. Ken wonders if we need to consider that and figure out what our strategy is moving forward. Is gforge the way to solve it for the product groups? Lorraine: IN many ways you're talking about developing our tooling infrastructure and strategy and looking at where we need to get to. This is a piece of that infrastructure issue. Calvin: Not sure the world can have an account on gforge the way it is now. Andy: the problem will always be number of users and how to manage those users.
    • Calvin: There are three paths: gforge (but then what do we do with STU tracking), or there are other tools, or widening the current STU comment process to include normative. How open we can make gforge is a key to the issue. Lorraine: If we were looking at managing a large volume of users we could put a web-based portal up that feeds gforge. We need to determine our requirements to analyze the solutions.
      • ACTION: Add developing requirements to Saturday San Antonio agenda
  • Continue TSC SWOT Review
    • Add for next week
  • Identifying and communicating essential rules (Wayne)
    • Add for next week
• Adjourned at 12:05 Eastern

Next Steps

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

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2016-12-05 TSC Call Agenda.

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.