2017-05-06 TSC WGM Agenda

TSC Saturday meeting for Madrid WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: Alcabon		Date: 2017-05-06 Time: 10:00 am
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	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
Regrets	Freida Hall	Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
Regrets	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 (Q2 and Q4)
x	Austin Kreisler	SSD-SD Co-chair
x	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
Regrets	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Sandra Stuart	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x	Ted Klein	(Q2)
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

Q1 - 10 am - 11:30 am

• Roll call
• Agenda review
• Housekeeping.
• TSC Essentialism (Ken/Wayne)
  • Where do management groups/interest groups fit in? (Question from SGB)

Q2 - 12 pm to 1:30 pm

• Unified Terminology Project (Ted)
• TSC Nominating Committee
• TSC Chair election
• SGB Update (Paul/Austin)
  • CDA MG Mission and Charter
• Review TSC Multi-Year Plan

Q3 - 2:45 pm to 4 pm

• TSC Essentialism (Ken/Wayne)
• HL7 Product Roadmap
• EST/Tooling
• Review Co-chair Dinner Agenda

Q4 - 4:30 pm to 6 pm

• WGM Issues
  • WGs not meeting at international meetings/out of cycle meeting scheduling
  • Dial-in access to International meetings
  • Sunday meeting fees
• Where/How to document TSC decisions

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

1. ArB
2. BAM
3. FHIR - R3 lessons learned
   • Invite delegates from FMG, SGB, FGB
   • FHIR publication naming
4. Product family addition to support CIMI
5. SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin

Wednesday lunch

1. • Review TSC Three-Year Plan
   • Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - 10 am - 11:30 am

• Roll call
  • Pat Van Dyke here to observe.
• Agenda review
  • Moving continuation of essentialism to Q2
• Housekeeping
  • Noted shift in Qs.
• Meeting minutes from last Monday
  • Minutes accepted via general consent
• TSC Essentialism (Ken/Wayne)
  • Ken introduces topic. Group looked at goals of simplifying the WG structure slide from Wayne’s presentation. The idea is to look at how we want to be in the future, not just what we’ve done before. Calvin notes that communication will be sensitive due to the resulting angst. Doesn’t see what will help people understand why two groups would come together. Lorraine’s main concern is that if we lump too many disparate things together, it will create confusion. John: We need to define the steering divisions with separation of scope. Austin: Lumping things together won’t help with complexity – will just move it around. Trying to merge WGs from the top down won’t work – we should let the WGs help us understand who can merge.
  • Melva: How does the board’s strategic plan fit into this? Lorraine: One goal is to make it easier for people to engage; not sure refactoring how we divide WGs up is the solution to that. Calvin: For goals, one thing that jumps out is that we say key participants are spread too thin; not sure how this will help. What is driving the mergers? Is there real benefit? Jean: What is the point of reducing them; we need to know our why. Question is how big are we going with it? Lorraine: That goes to Austin’s point. We’ve done some mergers that were initiated by WGs themselves.
  • Wayne: The goal is clarity, efficiency, and making HL7 easier to navigate. We don’t have a problem, but outside people do; we want to make it easier to engage with outsiders. We could introduce another layer in the organization, for example.
  • Ken: We want to have essential WGs as opposed to a WG for every function. Calvin: So a goal is a sustainable and scalable organization – we need to add that to this list of goals. We can make that the main bullet #2 and make “facilitate clarity of WG functions…” a sub-bullet.
  • Jean: Still haven’t heard anyone say how big we want this change to be. Lorraine: No matter what we do with WG structure, we need to do other things to help people understand how to engage with the organization. John: We need a clear and consistent definition of the scope of the SDs to understand what typifies a WG within that SD. Jean: We also need to be cognizant of scope creep. Giorgio: The real question should be what a WG should do. Melva: Maybe in addition to looking at how many WGs we have, we need to look at how we get projects started and into the right place.
  • Wayne notes that the GOM states that we need four steering divisions. Unclear names. Wiki page is better organized than the WG list on the website that includes governance groups and others. Reviewed potential reorganized chart with renamed SDs – Health & Clinical, Domain Technology, Infrastructure, Functional Support. Separate box for interest groups.
  • Reviewed questions on structure slide. Lorraine: The challenge we have is that we have two different axes of organization – internal and external. Looking at sub-listserves under the primary listserve gives you a good view of what we have going on in the organization.
  • Reviewed slide with a possible top-down view of revised TSC structure. Calvin: Question of the US vs. the international standards. Should the work that is US based be done in US committees? Jean: This is okay but we haven’t defined what a WG does. Giorgio: I don’t see any affiliate representation. Group agrees this doesn’t change that. Discussion that we may need another box for international representation, although international council doesn’t sit under TSC.
  • Tony: We ought to introduce WG longevity into this conversation. Maybe we need to work on the philosophy that a project doesn’t have to have a new WG, and WGs need to be amendable to the fact that someone has an idea outside of their normal domain. Discussion that SIGs were supposed to come together to do a specific project and then go away.
  • Lorraine: If we separate off US Realm work, we’ll draw energy away from international work. Austin: Do we want to identify those WGs that today are only doing US Realm work?
  • Calvin: Need to allow recognition that some things will start as a short term project but may transform into a WG as time goes on. Needs to be an option that the group matures and continues to be active and potentially transitions to WG.
  • Sandy: Pharmacy and OO – questions placement. If you’re looking at this from a higher level, it would be critical to know what the M&C of health and clinical is, and that would drive the placement. Ken: Can’t crystallize that until we crystallize the goals.
  • Austin: We need to provide definitions of what steering divisions are, plus the other big boxes. John: Need a consistent, complete, coherent definition of the SDs. Jean: What is a SD, do we need an SD, what is it, what is the right number – those are our next questions.
  • Could ignore the existing structures we have now and organize by product communities. Problem is it is antithetical to what we do today. Lorraine: So when you said separating into communities by product families – one thing we’re trying to do is achieve consistency across product families, but siloing us that way could be a problem. Calvin: Recognizes families, but has a weakness of cross-platform concerns. Have to stand up a fully functional group that can understand the concepts in the domain and understands methodological concerns. We don’t have a place to put domain groups to come in and work with us and give us the requirements for a full fledged product. Lorraine: CIMI is aiming to do that. Wayne: Makes sense to have a product structure. Lorraine: We should think about bringing the community aspect back.
  • Jean: If you have the four product families with WGs focused on domains, the WG definition becomes clearer. That gives us three steering divisions – domain, infrastructure, and functional support groups. Austin: We have this matrix structure today. SSD was for high level structures that the domain groups would elaborate upon. Lorraine: Surfacing that matrix to our constituent base is something we need to do. Maybe projects originate in the SD (or TSC) rather than the WG.
  • Calvin: You could argue that all the projects could go through the product management groups and be sponsored there, with the domains working the projects. Ken: So product management would support the matrix process. Austin: The problem is that means we need to have product families for everything, or we need to have a catch-all. Giorgio: What if we have something that doesn’t fit, or is cross-domain? Calvin: We would be saying that if we get something that doesn’t fit, does it become a new product family? It’s a tough question. Lorraine: That was the point of phase 1 and phase 2 of the BAM. We haven’t changed out behavior to match that. Ken: Does the steering division have WGs and is the TSC assigning to the SD in this matrix structure? Jean works on a new diagram.

Q2 - 12 pm to 1:30 pm

• Unified Terminology Project (Ted)
  • Ted Klein here to discuss. Reviewed slide deck. There is no single source of truth, tooling issues, quality and updating issues, high cost/limited benefits. Need a new process. FHIR is developing in their own direction. UTG project started 2 years ago; there is increasing urgency to complete it. Primary scope is curating value sets and concept domains, but HL7 code systems also need curation. There are 24 major objectives; it will replace current harmonization; it will support HL7s evolving standards development process and must support FHIR rapid development model. This would be crowd-sourced architecture with a terminology curator. Two parallel activity tracks: continuous community-driven updates and consensus, and HL7-driven processing and maintenance. Discussion over terminology curator – would not be a volunteer position. There must be back up people as well. Discussion over process of getting appropriate unbiased consensus pool. Ted will forward documents describing process addressing this. Project is moving more slowly than desired. Eventually HL7 will have to invest in the implementation. Putting into place will involve significant changes to how balloted artifacts are created and published. Need to start evaluating existing tooling and assessing which terminologies will be subject to UTG. Consensus process must be consistent with GOM and HL7 principles. Working through intricacies of consensus process. Need increased participation from Tooling. Need to agree on documentation from which RFPs can be put together by HL7.
    • Ken suggests that Ted discuss at co-chair dinner. Lorraine also suggests to send email to tooling list. Pat would like to see this socialized at the board retreat. Wayne will cover on Monday in the CTO update.
• TSC essentialism, continued
  • Group reviews Jean’s healthcare domains matrix. To be a domain group you need to be a well understood domain of healthcare AND have a project that fits into one of our product families. Discussion over some names not reflecting what groups do. Austin mentions the groups that do infrastructure & methodology. Product management groups across the top, then Health & Clinical/Domain technology down the side. Other divisions are functional support and methodology. Depends on WGs with clearly defined work. Paul states a WG is a pool of expertise.
  • Lorraine: This model leaves out a section of the org that does stuff like clinical reasoning. Could be communities of interest issue. Discussion over CIC that only produces DAMs. Pat: Are DAMs part of a product family as an artifact? Calvin doesn’t think so – DAMs sit in conceptual space. Ken summarizes that Fxl support and methodology are different from the other WGs. May need processes tailored to categories. Perhaps we need to think about what is the group responsible to do as far as the project? How many projects can a group take on? And how many are we running through the system? A group that has one project isn’t enough but 50 projects is too many. WGs follow administrative roles; ensure that governance requirements are followed. Discussion over projects that span multiple groups. Calvin: 30 projects running on FHIR is a lot for a product family line. They could do the administrative review with cross-check from TSC, but they can’t manage all the projects. Difference is in responsibility vs. accountability. Sometimes a project spans WGs. A primary WG has to own the project with family oversight. Project team is responsible for the product development with supervision by the product family group. Giving everything to the project team risks quality. Lorraine: That’s why the WG is important – WGs are managing the project teams. Necessary to follow behaviors required by ANSI. Lorraine: While splitting up things along product families makes sense to us, it doesn’t make sense to the outside world.
• Review TSC Multi-Year Plan
  • Add to future agenda

Q3 - 2:45 pm to 4 pm

• TSC Essentialism (Ken/Wayne)
  • Ken plans to announce the major goals at the co-chair dinner (first 3 bullets) and affiliates meeting with sub-bullets as talking points. Lorraine: We have to axes of organizations: The outside view of us and how we get our work done. Dividing up along product family lines works for us as far as work structure, but it means nothing to the outside world. People know what FHIR is, but most people from the outside don’t really know how to separate between the product families. Calvin: There’s the selling of the products, but there is also people who want to come in. Where does the member plug into this to participate.
  • What are next steps, and how do we message that within our SDs? Calvin: We have tactical, short term things that we can identify that don’t require reorganization. We’re also looking at a bigger set of issues and strategies which would be to see if we can make the way projects work make sense, have the least amount of organizational overhead, and meet the goal of sustainability and scalability. Melva: Concrete next steps could be mission and charters, name changes, etc. Ken: Should SDs look at their WGs and look at completing those steps?
    • ACTION: Melva, Jean, John, Calvin will review existing WGs and report at the 2017-06-05 TSC meeting.
  • Discussion over governance committees and their reporting, specifically HTA and US Realm. These groups technically report to the board but others report to TSC. SGB, FGB, and ARB are reporting to TSC. Discussion over home for interest groups and the SD names on the diagram. Austin suggests SDs could have conversation on Monday night about how the WGs within are defined and perhaps even propose a different name; at the least come up with a definition. Jean will assist Paul at FTSD since he is not present for this conversation.
    • Questions/issues for SDs:
      • Review SD Mission and Charter
      • Does it differentiate us from other SD?
      • Does the name represent our Mission and Charter?
      • Review WG Mission and Charter
      • Does it differentiate you from other WGs?
      • Does your WG name represent your Mission and Charter?
      • August 1 deadline to submit draft updated M&C to SD (including potential name change)
  • Calvin: Should we ask them in the future if they feel they would be better off as an Interest Group? Perhaps they can give a 2 or 3 sentence summary of how they could coordinate with a WG if they were an Interest Group. Lorraine: We could give them the draft definition that we created to work from. Could be a different WG on a project to project basis.
  • Questions for WGs:
    • Review WG Mission and Charter
    • Does it differentiate you from other WGs?
    • Does your WG name represent your Mission and Charter?
    • Would your WG function better as an Interest Group? (follow-up question sent with definition)
      • MOTION to present first 3 at SD meetings on Monday night with response by August 1; follow-up question before September meeting): Calvin/Lorraine
      • VOTE: All in favor
      • ACTION: SD cochairs to present at SD meetings; Ken to broach topic at co-chair dinner
      • ACTION: Anne to add subject to SGB agenda
• TSC Nominating Committee
  • Wayne asked Stan if LDC would consider taking nominations to TSC under their umbrella? Melva notes there would be no affiliate representation if we did that. Wayne states we could potentially change that. It’s noted that TSC members come from co-chairs. Typically the nominating committee comes from non-expiring members of TSC. Calvin: Those who are not up for election know the co-chairs better than someone up in another group. Our current process seems most appropriate. The education the LDC is offering would be great to offer to co-chairs.
    • Decision to continue with existing process with the possibility of having co-chair education offered from the LDC.
  • TSC chair position will be open for nominations in September. Ken and Austin intend to run.

Q4 - 4:30 pm to 6 pm

• Review Co-chair Dinner Agenda
  • Reviewed/edited co-chair dinner agenda. Removed Dave Hamill/Added Ted Klein.
• SGB Update (Paul/Austin)
  • CDA MG Mission and Charter
    • Reviewed document. SGB also approved a template MG M&C that will be reviewed with TSC later. Ken asks about the “assessing and approving” statements in the work products and contributions – Austin states it’s more about assessing projects. Lorraine notes that publication requests have not historically gone to management group. This states proposals, publishing and ballot requests go through the MG. Discussion over whether MG and SD approvals should be in parallel – Melva states it’s been problematic to have it in parallel. Discussion over how to socialize this. Austin states there is a joint session this week to go over this. Ken could encourage people to show up at that session at the co-chair dinner. Publishing requests would be submitted first to MG and then TSC. Discussion over any of these would require change to GOM. Could still have them submit to TSC and TSC could route it to MG first.
    • Reviewed composition section.
      • MOTION to accept initial CDA MG Mission and Charter as edited: Austin/Melva
      • VOTE: All in favor
• HL7 Product Roadmap
  • Wayne is putting together a product roadmap of where the major product families are going over the next couple of years using the FHIR roadmap as a model. In addition to the major product families, it also includes Tooling. Is talking to Structured Docs and V2 people this week. Also should include CDA and V3 messaging. CIMI is also on the list.
  • Calvin asks if we’re ready to start thinking about CIMI as a product family? Lorraine notes their current activities suggest that they are behaving like one. They have gone beyond defining clinical requirements and clinical models.
    • Need to look at engaging with them regarding formalizing their formation as a product family. No one in CIMI represented on TSC. Their project was been kicked back for a number of reasons including lack of coordination with tooling, etc.
• WGM Issues
  • WGs not meeting at international meetings/out of cycle meeting scheduling
    • Four WGs are not meeting in Madrid. We used to appoint interim co-chairs so everyone met. Attachments should not have scheduled a competing meeting. Don’t want this to happen again next May. Anesthesia, Attachments, Child Health, and II are not meeting here. Calvin: Should we allow for the designation of WGs that only deal with US Realm? Paul: Attachments’ scope should be universal. Lorraine: At times we’ve asked a couple cycles ahead if they’ll have challenges. Melva: We need to be more prepared for Cologne. Ken: They knew in January that they weren’t coming. Not sure why they didn’t follow the process this time when they’ve done so in the past. Melva: Maybe it’s time to put something in the co-chair dinner announcements for this time and September to remind of appropriate process/behavior. Ken: Perhaps we’re very clear at the dinner in September and January. Calvin: Perhaps we say that the expectation is that you’re present, but if you can’t, get people lined up so you will. Wayne notes that the GOM is too vague. Ken reports that Freida is making adjustments for us to review. Jean: We keep saying to the affiliates that they need to keep coming. We need the US people to know that we’re expecting that from others so it is also expected of you. Ken: We can’t change the policies of the government. Lorraine: But you can make arrangements for someone else to attend.
  • Dial-in access to International meetings
  • Sunday meeting fees
    • It used to be that Sunday fees covered lunch and expenses. Then we raised it to be the same as any other day. There is a discount for Mon – Fri, but no discount Sun – Thurs. The most dedicated volunteers are being punished by the increase. Used to be Mon – Fri fee and $50 to add Sunday.
      • MOTION to ask EC to consider giving same registration discount for Sun – Thurs as is available for Mon – Fri, or to have the option to pay original Sunday fees of expenses only: Lorraine/Paul
      • Calvin: We may need to understand more about cost structure. Lorraine: If we have costs and need to raise our fees, we should distribute that across our members.
      • Lorraine withdraws motion
      • Revised MOTION to ask EC to find out what the costs are for Sunday so that, along with existing Mon – Fri rate, we could offer a similarly discounted Sunday – Friday rate as well: Jean/Paul
      • VOTE: Wayne votes against. Remaining in favor.
• Where/How to document TSC decisions
  • Ken is trying to figure out if there’s a way to document them on HL7.org. Lorraine states it would be easier to put it on the wiki so we can maintain it more easily with a link from HL7.org. Melva: Why don’t we add a link under additional resources to the TSC wiki. Group agrees.
• Discussion over timing of meeting tomorrow. Decision to move to 6:15.
• Not addressed today:
  • EST/Tooling

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

• .

|- |Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

• .

|}