Difference between revisions of "FTSD-F2F-20090511"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) (New page: =Foundation and Technology Steering Division Workgroup Meeting= FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division ==Attendees== *Vocabulary ** Ted Klein ** Beverly Knight ** Russ Hamm **Jo...) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
** Dale Nelson | ** Dale Nelson | ||
*RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA) | *RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Summarized== | ||
| + | *This weeks TSC discussions inre: | ||
| + | **Update Work Group 3-yr plans at/by September WGM: What is it? | ||
| + | **Value of reviewing Board Roadmap projects from Work Group perspectives: What is it? | ||
| + | **Positioning of current work in re Enterprise Architecture Framework publications: : What is it? | ||
| + | **Intent to review/release SAEAF documentation on a trimester cycle: When is the first review scheduled? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Discussion of Low Attendance at SD Conference Calls== | ||
| + | Briefly, the repetitive schedule is a burden because the content seems of little real import. Calls are not engaging the Work Group Co-Chairs in the critical decisions of the TSC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Ways to "Engage" the Work Groups== | ||
| + | *Find the shared "Hot Topics" or Issues that Co-chairs feel will improve HL7 and the TSC | ||
| + | *Use SD as vehicle in which to share strategies for dealing with ballot issues that are particularly "thorny' (Example from Vocab in re CTS2 ballot) | ||
| + | *Address issues that underlie the continuing perception that the EAF is being done "to" the Work Groups rather than "with" or "by" the Work Groups. | ||
| + | **Perception that comments and reviews are not read and responded to | ||
| + | **Seems no formal feed back of "response" to comments, just a "thank you" is not reasonable | ||
| + | **Slide decks seem to have little "meat" to them | ||
| + | **Unclear what the organization (presumably the TSC) means by endorsing SAEAF | ||
| + | ***Paraphrase of one response was: "The TSC and HL7 are committed to implementing a new Enterprise Architecture based on the initial work in SAEAF. The architecture will evolve over time, as we (all of HL7) learns what works/what doesn't; what meets needs of HL7 clients and customers, etc. BUT there is a commitment to grow with the SAEAF and ARB process." | ||
| + | *Agreed to keep discussion of how best to - understand, review, interact with, contribute to, test - the SAEAF as a major thread or set thereof on the SD list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Adjourned at 8:15== | ||
| + | *Agreed to push a discussion on the SD list of the ways that the SAEAF evolution | ||
Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 May 2009
Contents
Foundation and Technology Steering Division Workgroup Meeting
FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division
Attendees
- Vocabulary
- Ted Klein
- Beverly Knight
- Russ Hamm
- Jobst Landgrebe
- Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
- Grahame Grieve
- Sandy Stuart
- Implementation/Conformance
- Jane Gilbert
- Frank Oemig
- Security
- Bernd Blobel
- Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
- Charlie McCay
- Paul Knapp
- Dale Nelson
- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
- Ken Rubin
- Templates
- Mark Shafarman
- Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
- Grahame Grieve
- Woody Beeler
- Dale Nelson
- RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
Summarized
- This weeks TSC discussions inre:
- Update Work Group 3-yr plans at/by September WGM: What is it?
- Value of reviewing Board Roadmap projects from Work Group perspectives: What is it?
- Positioning of current work in re Enterprise Architecture Framework publications: : What is it?
- Intent to review/release SAEAF documentation on a trimester cycle: When is the first review scheduled?
Discussion of Low Attendance at SD Conference Calls
Briefly, the repetitive schedule is a burden because the content seems of little real import. Calls are not engaging the Work Group Co-Chairs in the critical decisions of the TSC.
Ways to "Engage" the Work Groups
- Find the shared "Hot Topics" or Issues that Co-chairs feel will improve HL7 and the TSC
- Use SD as vehicle in which to share strategies for dealing with ballot issues that are particularly "thorny' (Example from Vocab in re CTS2 ballot)
- Address issues that underlie the continuing perception that the EAF is being done "to" the Work Groups rather than "with" or "by" the Work Groups.
- Perception that comments and reviews are not read and responded to
- Seems no formal feed back of "response" to comments, just a "thank you" is not reasonable
- Slide decks seem to have little "meat" to them
- Unclear what the organization (presumably the TSC) means by endorsing SAEAF
- Paraphrase of one response was: "The TSC and HL7 are committed to implementing a new Enterprise Architecture based on the initial work in SAEAF. The architecture will evolve over time, as we (all of HL7) learns what works/what doesn't; what meets needs of HL7 clients and customers, etc. BUT there is a commitment to grow with the SAEAF and ARB process."
- Agreed to keep discussion of how best to - understand, review, interact with, contribute to, test - the SAEAF as a major thread or set thereof on the SD list.
Adjourned at 8:15
- Agreed to push a discussion on the SD list of the ways that the SAEAF evolution
