2018-05-13 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 08:40, 14 May 2018 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Sunday meeting for Cologne WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Salon 19, Würzburg

Time: 5:15 PM
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee Name Affiliation
? Calvin Beebe HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Co-Chair
Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Floyd Eisenberg HL7 DESD Co-chair
x Russ Hamm HL7 FTSD Co-chair
? Pat Van Dyke HL7 Immediate Past Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
? Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
Regrets Tony Julian HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Regrets Austin Kreisler TSC Chair, SSD-SD Co-chair
x Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin Adhoc Member
x Mary Kay McDaniel SSD-SD Co-chair
x John Roberts Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x Anne Wizauer(scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Sandra Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

  1. ArB
  2. BAM
  3. FHIR
  4. CDA-MG
  5. Messaging at co-chair dinner/steering divisions/general sessions


  1. Ken chairing until Wayne arrives
  2. ArB
    • Short cycle; nothing new to report
  3. BAM
    • Need to do an update based on experiences with it. Working through applying step 1 to the RDAM issue.
  4. CIMI-MG
    • Need more international participation for the open spot. A request was sent out. V2MG call for participation ended just before the WGM. CDA-MG is looking for two new candidates.
      • ACTION: Add CDA-MG, CIMI-MG, and V2MG candidates to 2018-06-04 TSC agenda
  1. FHIR
    • There are issues with people submitting spreadsheets to the wrong ballot pool. Drafting email to cochairs based on Austin’s previous instructions around what WGs do in this situation. Also have cross-ballot duplicates, etc. Overall we didn’t get a terrifying number of comments. Lots more people submitted in Gforge, at least 50%. A portion of the community is uncomfortable locking anything down, so there is a general nervousness in the community in saying things are Normative.
    • Connectathon went well, although no one showed up for the Patient track which was unusual – it means everyone who came had some previous knowledge of FHIR.
    • FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
      • FMG would like to see discussion of community engagement reach-out process on this PSS. HL7 hasn’t traditionally played in this space and we want to make sure we’re drawing in/engaging with the right set of stakeholders. Floyd states that Brian Alpert is working on this project and is representing the clinical practice guideline development community made up of professional societies, etc. They follow Institute of Medicine principles. There are no metadata elements that go along with the guidelines to help people filter the data. They also want to use this for clinical decision support. What isn’t in the PSS is a section to say what is being done/what the group is; in truth there are two annual meetings at which this is being looked at and worked on. He is looking for input from both sides, and then the individuals from those groups will come to do the work at HL7. John asks if this is the only group that does this? They don’t have a standard; they will reference IOM material, but there won’t be an agreement or anything like that. MK notes that this is not the kind of thing we do well, so we need to be mindful of supporting that collaboration with these outside groups. Have we looked at what we would need to provide to help them do that? Lloyd: From a FHIR perspective, we just want to identify the community support plan that the project has so it can be evaluated. Need to ensure that the project has a support plan that we feel is realistic and realizable. If they can’t, then the project shouldn’t proceed. Reviewed timeline. Ken: This goes down the path of a potential new product family. Lorraine disagrees. Ken’s concept is that it’s not orders or observations – it’s effectively a product insert for medicines. Doesn’t really fit a product family. Lorraine: We’re already doing very similar things in protocols, documentation sets, etc. in the knowledge artifact specification.
      • Lloyd: The issue for the TSC right now is that the PSS submission form should have the ability to capture something about the community engagement and support plans. For the time being, we could add pertinent info in project need section regarding engagement until the PSS template is updated to include a space for that information. Text box could be “what is the long-term plan to engage with the stakeholder community, including those outside of HL7, and what is the plan to support that community within HL7 – call engagement, listserve, trackers, etc.” Lorraine asks what kind of projects would trigger that? Lloyd: Not PSS-lite. Any project involving stakeholders who haven’t traditionally been involved in HL7. Melva wonders if this is putting a lot on the proponents of the project. Ken states this section may also help define if an SOU is needed. Lorraine: When we have a new product family, we go through analyzing organizational readiness – that’s where we could address some of the things Melva is talking about. Floyd doesn’t think this is to the point of making a new product family – this is just trying to promote the use of standard metadata. Ken: This could be something that helps us trial user groups. Melva states coming up with the plan could be overwhelming to project teams.
        • MOTION to explore adding a section entitled “sustainability plans” to the PSS template between the current 6.c. and 6.d with specific explanatory language to be drafted: Floyd/John
          • Paul and Melva have concerns about tasking the WGs with this activity. Mary Kay agrees. Lorraine: We likely wouldn’t have done a lot of the things we’ve done with this bar. People are going to read this as a burden. (Wayne arrives.) Lorraine: It’s valid for HL7 to have the conversation about ensuring sustainability, but is it a management group’s role to enforce it? MK: What we don’t have is a place where we’ve talked about this. Whose responsibility is it to make sure a new group coming in has the support they need and identify what that support is going to be? How do we help them bring in the new people, getting the work done without burdening a WG? Is it the WG’s responsibility to outline that in the PSS? We don’t want to turn away people, but we don’t want to get them here and have it fail. Floyd states the original scope of this project has been expanded by the reviewers thus far.
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • ACTIONS:
          • Add to parking lot:
            • Look into ways to integrate new projects into HL7 including resource requirements - MK
            • Define organizational function of bringing external projects in – Paul
            • Look at ways to determine if projects coming in are HL7-appropriate projects from a resource and scope standpoint - ARB to comment if our current process is comprehensive
  2. Messaging at co-chair dinner/steering divisions/general sessions
    • Melva asks if there is anything we need to cover at SD meetings. Ken: We need to remind them of upcoming elections, update DMPs and M&Cs now that we’ve made all the changes. Paul: A few WGs have brought up issues about their location. WGs should fill out a WG change request if they want to move. Ken is uncomfortable discussing without Austin. Melva: We should consider who most often cosponsors WG projects, and those groups should likely be in the same steering division. MK notes that her SD needs to update their DMP to even know if they have quorum.
      • ACTION: Add WG move issues to 2018-06-04 TSC agenda
  3. Adjourned at 6:46 pm Eastern