From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 18:04, 21 November 2007 by Karenvan (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, November 12th, 2007 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 702-894-2444 and enter pass code 1244667#
GoToMeeting at
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas



  • Chair: Charlie McCay
  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Frank Oemig, Charlie McCay
  • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck


  • Charles Jaffe (CE); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Chair); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair Elect)


Ken McCaslin


  1. (10 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - Charlie McCay (Chair), John Quinn (CTO), Austin Kreisler, Gregg Seppala, Woody Beeler, Frank Oemig, Ioana Signureanu, Jim Case, Calvin Beebe, and Karen Van Hentenryck were in attendance.
    2. Accept Agenda - The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.
    3. Approve Minutes ConCall-20071112 - MOTION by Case: To approve the minutes as printed; seconded by Beebe. The motion was unanimously approved.
  2. (10 min) Standing Committee Reports
    1. CEO Report - Charles Jaffe is in the UK. No report was provided.
    2. CTO Report -
    • ARB - Quinn reported that he distributed a slide deck regarding the formation of ARB. This is in response to the desire expressed last week for more information as to the skills required to serve on the ARB and the responsibilites of that group. Charlie Mead has returned from Africa, and Quinn and C. Mead will add more details to the slides. Many individuals have expressed an interest in serving on the ARB.
    • Quest appeal on V2.5.1 Implementation Guide - Quinn met with OO last week and the committee voted to retain the current wording and reject Quest’s proposed wording changes. McCaslin had indicated that Quest will withdraw their negative as pursuing the appeal will only prolong the ballot period. There is a second set of negative votes from the CDC on the other V2.5.1 implementation guide.
    • Open Health Tooling (OHT) Quinn spent Mon – Thurs of last week in meetings with the Open Health Tools committee. They are addressing high level questions regarding funding with that group. Tools are to be developed on Eclipse’s shared platform
    1. ARB report - Charlie Mead was not in attendance and no report was provided.
    2. Affiliates Report - Neither McCay nor Oemig has issues to report.
    3. Domain Experts - There was no traffic on their list serve and this group has nothing new to report.
    4. Foundation & Technology - Singureanu reported that their Steering Division has been talking about HDF as noted on last week's TSC call. MnM and vocabulary have an interest in this document. The HDF is intended to document artifacts and process for more than message development. The HDF is not an attempt to develop a general purpose methodology. Rather, it represents a general process that can be applied across committees. They are still working through the process of determining whether the HDF should be retained by MnM or becomes a TSC project with multiple contributors. They will have more to report in two weeks’ time. The other issue that was raised by this steering division was backwards compatibility. This issue is manifesting itself in the Normative Edition in INM material (wrappers are not always backwards compatible). Signureanu feels that we should reconfirm our commitment to backwards compatibility or provide a well reasoned rationale for making disruptive changes for implementors. Scott Robertson is taking this issue up with INM Committee. A solution may be to bundle together multiple distributions into a single edition. Beeler noted that this issue will be problem a year from now.
    5. Structure & Semanic Design- Beebe reported that their steering division approved three project proposed. The next step is to bring these to the TSC for approval. '''ACTION ITEM''': Beebe will mail them to the TSC list.
    6. Technical & Support Services - Neither representative was in attendance and no report was provided.
  3. (15 min) Project Initiation process review- McCay reminded the group that this issues was carried forward from a couple of weeks ago. Singureanu reviewed the proposed project initiative projess, indicating that the process has been revised with the new organization in mind. The process will provide clear guidelines as to which projects can be undertaken and which cannot. Step 1 is to enter the needs objectives and goals to the template. Step 2 is to identify and name a project team and implementers. Infrastructure projects don’t require implementers as all committee are implementers of these projects. Agreeing to be an implementer is a non-binding agreement but provides proof that the standard is needed and will be used. The premise is that it is much easier to rally people around a project once a scope statement is drafted. Step 3 is to specify the publication method. Project scope statements need to be available online. The sponsoring committee would be first to approve the project scope statement. As soon as the scope is approved by the committee, it should be forwarded immediately to the steering division for approval. Once approved by the steering division, the project scope statement is forwarded to the TSC for approval. The Steering Division and TSC will prioritize the projects, particularly when they require HQ time. Once TSC has signed off on the project scope statement, the PMO would sign off that all processes has been followed. There are two outstanding issues: (1) the means to publish scope statements and; (2) ongoing project oversight. '''ACTION ITEM''': Singureanu will update the diagram to indicate infrastructure exemption from the implementation requirement. We need criteria for defining infrastructure projects. Project Services is the likely owner of the project approval project and as such should develop chapter 2 of the HDF. McCay noted that the TSC supports the formation of project services committee, and their mission/charter included maintaining this type of information. '''ACTION ITEM:''' the Project Services Committee will propose critera for defining infrastructure project. Singureanu noted that process and the matter of whether we can live with it are two separate questions. '''ACTION ITEM''': There will be a discussion on the TSCadmins list to clarify and come to agreement on which list the topic will be discussed. Singureanu will provide the link to issues tracker for HDF.
  4. (15 min) CEN/ISO/HL7 working group processes project - McCay reported that there were some process issues around how work comes into HL7 from the Joint Initiative. There is work to be done to determine how balloting will take place and to draft documentation around other process issues. McCay just e-mailed a document to the list. '''ACTION ITEM''': TSC member to provide comments on McCay's joint initiative document. Should these be TSC sponsored projects? We need a straight forward process to bring ISO work to HL7
  5. (15 min) 2007 and 2008 Normative edition release plans- McCay asked whether we will produce the 2007 Normative Edition release. Beeler feels that we should produce a single Edition titled 2008 Normative Edition, that will contains both the 2007 and 2008 Normative Editions, and indicated that we can complete this by the WGM. MOTION by Quinn: That the organization produce a single Normative Edition titled 2008 to contain both 2007 and 2008 Normative Editions; seconded by Beebe. The motion passed unanimously.
  6. (5 min) issue review and processing - McCay reported that Van Hentenryck distributed the updated TSC Issues list late last week, which includes assignments for all issues and actions for the TSC. Also includes statements as to why things were closed. '''ACTION ITEM''': TSC members will review the issues and action items and raise any questions/concerns on the TSCadmins list. If there are issues that need to be discussed on the agenda, please send them to the list.
    1. Status of gForge Implementation - The project is now set up on Gforge; '''ACTION ITEM''': Singureanu will customize the project form to reflect the process that the TSC approved previously.
    2. tsc issue review process

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

Click for TSC Action Item List

[This is a place for TSC members to list or amend items that should be completed in the short term.]

  • Modify and redistribute project template - Hall/ Project Services - based on feedback as Sept 2007 WGM
  • Appoint alternate to HITSP Small Scale Harmonization Project (Gregg Seppala is the primary representative - Transferred to the Board. Quinn/VanHentenryck will ensure this on the upcoming EC and Board agendas
  • Follow up with Singureanu RE RBAC Ballot - McCay to followup with Singurean/Beeler RE appropriate handling of the RBAC ballot as they are co-chairs of the steering division on which the ballot occured.
  • Steering Division Co-chairs- Provice recommendations to Charlie Mead and John Quinn RE representatives from their steering division to serve on ARB.
  • Submit V2.6 Publishing issues reported by Jane Foard to TSC list - Quinn will distribute to TSC list so all are advised of the issues.