Difference between revisions of "2017-05-10 TSC WGM Agenda"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
| width="30%" colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes''' <br/>
 
| width="30%" colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes''' <br/>
'''Location:
+
'''Location: Borox
| width="50%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2017-05-07 '''<br/> '''Time: 5:15 pm'''
+
| width="50%" colspan="1" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2017-05-10 '''<br/> '''Time: 1:30 pm'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| width="30%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': Ken McCaslin
 
| width="30%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': Ken McCaslin
Line 22: Line 22:
 
|?||Woody Beeler||TSC Member Emeritus
 
|?||Woody Beeler||TSC Member Emeritus
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Giorgio Cangioli||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ARB Co-Chair
+
|x||Lorraine Constable||HL7 ARB Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative
+
|x||Jean Duteau||HL7 Affiliate Representative
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Regrets||Freida Hall||Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
 
|Regrets||Freida Hall||Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
Line 36: Line 36:
 
|?||Chuck Jaffe||HL7 CEO (member ''ex officio'' w/o vote)
 
|?||Chuck Jaffe||HL7 CEO (member ''ex officio'' w/o vote)
 
|-
 
|-
|x||Tony Julian||HL7 ARB Co-Chair
+
|?||Tony Julian||HL7 ARB Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
 
|x||Paul Knapp||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
 
|x||Paul Knapp||HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Line 42: Line 42:
 
|x||Austin Kreisler||SSD-SD Co-chair
 
|x||Austin Kreisler||SSD-SD Co-chair
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Wayne Kubick||HL7 CTO (TSC member ''ex officio'' w/vote)
+
|x||Wayne Kubick||HL7 CTO (TSC member ''ex officio'' w/vote)
 
|-
 
|-
|x||Ken McCaslin (Chair)
+
|x||Ken McCaslin ||TSC Chair
 
|-
 
|-
|x||Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ
+
|x||Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQ
 
|-
 
|-
|?||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
+
|x||Melva Peters||HL7 DESD Co-Chair
 
|-
 
|-
 
|x||John Roberts||HL7 DESD Co-chair
 
|x||John Roberts||HL7 DESD Co-chair
Line 58: Line 58:
 
|?||Pat Van Dyke||HL7 Board Chair (member ''ex officio'' w/ vote)
 
|?||Pat Van Dyke||HL7 Board Chair (member ''ex officio'' w/ vote)
 
|-
 
|-
| x||Lloyd McKenzie ||  
+
| || ||  
 
|-
 
|-
| x||Josh Mandel ||
 
|-
 
 
 
| || ||  
 
| || ||  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 70: Line 67:
 
|}
 
|}
  
==Sunday evening Agenda Topics==
+
==Wednesday lunch==
#ArB
+
*Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
#BAM
+
**Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
#FHIR - R3 lessons learned
+
***Domain Experts - Melva/John
#*Invite delegates from FMG, SGB, FGB
+
***Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
#*FHIR publication naming
+
***Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
#Product family addition to support CIMI
+
***Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
#[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/docman/Draft%20Documents/Ballot%20Level%20Change-R2%202.pptx SGB recommendations] regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
+
**EST/Tooling
 +
**ARB/BAM
 +
**Product family addition to support CIMI
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/docman/Draft%20Documents/Ballot%20Level%20Change-R2%202.pptx SGB recommendations] regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
  
 
==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:==
 
==Minutes/Conclusions Reached:==
*Quorum reached at 6:25 PM
+
*Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
*Reviewed Ken’s co-chair dinner slides in light of yesterday’s conversation.
+
**Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
*FHIR - R3 lessons learned
+
***Domain Experts - Melva/John
**Invite delegates from FMG, SGB, FGB
+
****Went well in Domain Experts. A few comments about the timing of the due dates. Need to follow up with email to cochairs saying this is what we expect. Lots of good questions and comments. Will create a Google doc for comments. Pharmacy went through M&C exercise this morning – discussion over boilerplate on SAIF. John notes DESD meeting revealed some other questions that could be asked regarding why do we have steering divisions/why aren’t certain WGs part of others or part of DESD. Suggested dividing into clinical and administrative. People were surprisingly open to the discussion. Templates for what M&Cs should look like would be welcome.  
**FHIR publication naming
+
*****ACTION: Look at M&C and get it back out for review.
***Lloyd: 2 naming issues: One is that current naming policy says that the release number has to restart. With FHIR we expect to do a publication every 18 months-ish. Our next publication, Release 4, will hopefully include some content that is normative, some that is STU, and a little that is draft. STU says this is ready for production; draft is work in progress to give a sense of what is going on (comment only). In subsequent releases, the volume of content that is normative will increase over time. Austin points out similarity between FHIR and V3. Lloyd: Difference is that we don’t expect to produce a normative edition. Intention is that there will be a publication every 18 months containing a mix of content and we would like such publications to be known as R4, R5, R6, etc. Given that the product will contain a mixture of content, it’s not clear when it would make sense to reset the count on the number, and from a marketing/implementer perspective, resetting the counter would be a bad idea. Paul: The name can’t say it’s a normative edition or have a ballot level because it will have mixed content. FHIR Release such and such is convenient; however, we use the term release with a number in other ways which could also be confusing. Austin: We also need to talk about packaging FHIR for ballot purposes. Lloyd: Second portion of the naming issue is conditioned publishing of the FHIR core specification; we also publish implementation guides. US Core has a certain number of resources in it and some may eventually be normative. So it doesn’t just affect the core spec, it also affects IGs. Calvin: The ballot part is where we may run into ANSI issues. If you take content through ballot with a singular name that could be a problem. Lloyd: We may run two parallel ballots on one artifact – one on normative content and a second parallel ballot on STU content. Paul: That’s fine, and there could also be a for comment for the other bits. The key thing is in the normative ballot – if there are five resources, and four go through and one needs changes, you can’t move forward with the four without the fifth without reballoting. If you want to be able to move those resources forward separately, they have to be individual packages. If anything in the package fails, the whole package fails. Lloyd: Logistically we have 100 resources, and the dependency hierarchy is variable. Lloyd’s leaning is to go forth with a single package. If we hit a circumstance where something doesn’t pass and we make the determination that the thing that failed is reasonable to only pull it and pass some of the others, we would go back for a second technical ballot of reduced scope to the same ballot pool. The label on what goes to ballot will be 2018-05 and what will go to ballot a second time is 2015-09, and when that’s resolved we would have FHIR Release 4. Calvin: Is the scope of the second ballot only if this subset is appropriate to go together or can they comment on other non-substantive changes? Paul: You can either scope it to the clean stuff, or if it was just one issue that you changed to fix the ten, you could scope to changes. Lloyd: When we put stuff out for ballot they can comment on anything, and we can make things unrelated. Austin: Comes down to clearly defining the scope of that second ballot. Any of those comments will hang around, though, to be resolved later. Lloyd: The initial ballot will go out, we can triage the comments on normative content, and fairly quickly identify the ones that are going to have substantive change vs. the ones that are fine. We can put out to the community the re-scoped normative up/down vote during the period of time that we’re still reconciling and applying changes on everything else. Paul: You would have to complete and include any of the changes to the subset that you’re keeping. Those items in the reduced scope have to be completed. Lloyd asks if there has to be a ballot snapshot for the revised balloted items; group responds yes, due to ANSI requirements. Austin states that ANSI essential requirements are quite simple; it’s our interpretation of them that is more complicated. Lloyd states the second snapshot could be the one used for Connectathon. Paul notes the time differences between doing an out of cycle ballot vs. in cycle. Ken states there could be value to doing out of cycle.  
+
*****ACTION: Email cochairs to remind them of tasks/dates
***ACTION: Ken will follow up with Lynn to find out about out of cycle timelines
+
***Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
**Naming issue, continued: Wayne, Grahame, and Ken have been grappling with the issue. The second challenge is that we have FHIR core, we have IGs based on FHIR core, and all of them have version dependency. What we have right now is US core, release 1 (based on FHIR release 3); next time around we could have US Lab Release 1 based on US Core release 2 based on FHIR release 4; our experience has been that HL7 insiders have looked at that and been confused. If insiders are confused, the implementer community will definitely be confused. The question is: Is there a labeling scheme for the core spec and for IGs that will make evident the dependencies and will be relatively intuitive to the implementer community? Ken is wondering if it really all has to be in the title. Lloyd; It’s really what are the names we are going to use and can it be referred to in a succinct, intuitive, and precise way. Paul: I would keep the name of the IG to the name of the IG just it. Then would require a standardized badge inside the IG listing the versions and dependencies. Lloyd: It may be using a different term for the core spec vs. the IGs. Austin: No substitute for keeping track of metadata. Need to get this figured out by R4.
+
****FTSD suggested everybody is a domain expert. Feeling was that our groups were named based on who came together rather than what they did. Should be looking at a more business/client facing perspective. Business client for SSD is actually Domain Experts. There was upset about creating Interest Groups, especially with limited functions; by the end of the meeting, they were more receptive to the idea, as long as there was a clearly defined progression for evolving into a WG. Other thing raised is that there are two different types of problems with outsiders coming in; we are addressing “where do I go?” but it doesn’t address/solve “how do I accomplish what I came here to do.” Would perhaps be helpful to have diagrams providing guidance. Calvin: Concern that each of the clinical topics are going to span the product families. Paul: If we don’t create WGs that have an expertise in an area, then what we do is create all of those WG functions within every WG and we won’t have consistency. Lorraine: That’s one of the functions of the review we’re doing at SD to make sure WGs aren’t doing the same work. Not that concerned about cross-family work. The issue is the reviews and checks/balances to make sure the correct people are interacting. Melva has more of a concern where groups go off and create clinical content without consulting and then wonder why they can’t do what they aimed to do. Austin: Product families are an attempt to deal with that particular issue. Management group has the authority to manage who does what. Wayne: I hear a lot of people use the word committee instead of WG. Why do we not use that instead of WG? Discussion of historical/cultural reason for that (lore and legacy). Paul states that generically, all groups within the organization are committees. Wayne notes that the ambiguity can create confusion. Wayne: We need a way to categorize new topics coming in – there is conversation about a new oncology group. Austin: We need some kind of form to help categorize.
***ACTION: Calvin will help with the FHIR naming issue. Lloyd will provide some examples.
+
Paul: WGs should list out the WGs they’re related to and how to identify any overlaps.
*Pushed to future meeting:
+
*****ACTION: Paul to articulate that idea for Ken’s email.
**ArB
+
*****ACTION: Calvin/Austin will work on pulling out WG relationships and making a mapping for September meeting. Paul suggests a functional chart instead of an org chart. Calvin: Each of the WGs could be listed and a weighting of the relationships between them.  
**BAM
+
****Discussion over HSI being distressed over not being able to do projects. They were advised that they can petition to move steering divisions. Lorraine: The co-chairs agreed to their current scope when they formed.
 +
***Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
 +
****Did actually settle on a proposed new name: Domain Foundations. Made some minor tweaks to M&C.
 +
***Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
 +
****Meeting consisted of Sandy, Dave, and Melissa from Education. Their calls have better turnout, so Sandy will broach the topic on the first call. Discussion over whether or not they are a true steering division they are really a functional group. Lorraine: It depends on how you define steering. May have to think about them the same way we think about user groups.  
 +
**EST/Tooling
 +
***ACTION: Add to next agenda
 +
**ARB/BAM
 +
***ACTION: Add to next agenda
 
**Product family addition to support CIMI
 
**Product family addition to support CIMI
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/docman/Draft%20Documents/Ballot%20Level%20Change-R2%202.pptx SGB recommendations] regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
+
***ACTION: Anne to forward CIMI newsletter to TSC.
 +
***ACTION: Add to next agenda
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/docman/Draft%20Documents/Ballot%20Level%20Change-R2%202.pptx SGB recommendations] regarding ballot level change requests Calvin
 +
*Jean announces that he will also run for TSC chair with Ken and Austin.
 +
**Discussion on voting procedure. GOC is going to make a draft decision that TSC will review. Jean states that Lynn notes that it was specifically vague when written. Question is over formal vs. informal vote – last time we did it as formal (one vote per steering division) or informal where each member gets a vote. Discussion over whether the vote for TSC chair is a formal vote or informal vote. Formal vote requires a motion. Could do an informal poll of the TSC that is then confirmed by a formal motion/vote for the preferred candidate that is revealed by the informal poll.
 +
**ACTION: Anne to add announcement that nominations are open on next TSC call.
  
 
<!--
 
<!--

Revision as of 08:33, 11 May 2017

TSC Wednesday meeting for Madrid WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Borox

Date: 2017-05-10
Time: 1:30 pm
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)
? Tony Julian HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler SSD-SD Co-chair
x Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin TSC 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
? Sandra Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
? Pat Van Dyke HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Wednesday lunch

  • Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
    • Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
      • Domain Experts - Melva/John
      • Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
      • Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
      • Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
    • EST/Tooling
    • ARB/BAM
    • Product family addition to support CIMI
    • SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Outstanding items from Saturday/Sunday meetings
    • Update from SD meetings re: Essentialism
      • Domain Experts - Melva/John
        • Went well in Domain Experts. A few comments about the timing of the due dates. Need to follow up with email to cochairs saying this is what we expect. Lots of good questions and comments. Will create a Google doc for comments. Pharmacy went through M&C exercise this morning – discussion over boilerplate on SAIF. John notes DESD meeting revealed some other questions that could be asked regarding why do we have steering divisions/why aren’t certain WGs part of others or part of DESD. Suggested dividing into clinical and administrative. People were surprisingly open to the discussion. Templates for what M&Cs should look like would be welcome.
          • ACTION: Look at M&C and get it back out for review.
          • ACTION: Email cochairs to remind them of tasks/dates
      • Foundation & Technology - Paul/Russ
        • FTSD suggested everybody is a domain expert. Feeling was that our groups were named based on who came together rather than what they did. Should be looking at a more business/client facing perspective. Business client for SSD is actually Domain Experts. There was upset about creating Interest Groups, especially with limited functions; by the end of the meeting, they were more receptive to the idea, as long as there was a clearly defined progression for evolving into a WG. Other thing raised is that there are two different types of problems with outsiders coming in; we are addressing “where do I go?” but it doesn’t address/solve “how do I accomplish what I came here to do.” Would perhaps be helpful to have diagrams providing guidance. Calvin: Concern that each of the clinical topics are going to span the product families. Paul: If we don’t create WGs that have an expertise in an area, then what we do is create all of those WG functions within every WG and we won’t have consistency. Lorraine: That’s one of the functions of the review we’re doing at SD to make sure WGs aren’t doing the same work. Not that concerned about cross-family work. The issue is the reviews and checks/balances to make sure the correct people are interacting. Melva has more of a concern where groups go off and create clinical content without consulting and then wonder why they can’t do what they aimed to do. Austin: Product families are an attempt to deal with that particular issue. Management group has the authority to manage who does what. Wayne: I hear a lot of people use the word committee instead of WG. Why do we not use that instead of WG? Discussion of historical/cultural reason for that (lore and legacy). Paul states that generically, all groups within the organization are committees. Wayne notes that the ambiguity can create confusion. Wayne: We need a way to categorize new topics coming in – there is conversation about a new oncology group. Austin: We need some kind of form to help categorize.

Paul: WGs should list out the WGs they’re related to and how to identify any overlaps.

          • ACTION: Paul to articulate that idea for Ken’s email.
          • ACTION: Calvin/Austin will work on pulling out WG relationships and making a mapping for September meeting. Paul suggests a functional chart instead of an org chart. Calvin: Each of the WGs could be listed and a weighting of the relationships between them.
        • Discussion over HSI being distressed over not being able to do projects. They were advised that they can petition to move steering divisions. Lorraine: The co-chairs agreed to their current scope when they formed.
      • Structure & Semantic - Calvin/Austin
        • Did actually settle on a proposed new name: Domain Foundations. Made some minor tweaks to M&C.
      • Technical & Support - Sandy/Andy
        • Meeting consisted of Sandy, Dave, and Melissa from Education. Their calls have better turnout, so Sandy will broach the topic on the first call. Discussion over whether or not they are a true steering division – they are really a functional group. Lorraine: It depends on how you define steering. May have to think about them the same way we think about user groups.
    • EST/Tooling
      • ACTION: Add to next agenda
    • ARB/BAM
      • ACTION: Add to next agenda
    • Product family addition to support CIMI
      • ACTION: Anne to forward CIMI newsletter to TSC.
      • ACTION: Add to next agenda
    • SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests – Calvin
  • Jean announces that he will also run for TSC chair with Ken and Austin.
    • Discussion on voting procedure. GOC is going to make a draft decision that TSC will review. Jean states that Lynn notes that it was specifically vague when written. Question is over formal vs. informal vote – last time we did it as formal (one vote per steering division) or informal where each member gets a vote. Discussion over whether the vote for TSC chair is a formal vote or informal vote. Formal vote requires a motion. Could do an informal poll of the TSC that is then confirmed by a formal motion/vote for the preferred candidate that is revealed by the informal poll.
    • ACTION: Anne to add announcement that nominations are open on next TSC call.


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