Difference between revisions of "Initial T3F Meeting - December 21, 2006"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
m (Initial T3F Meeting - December 22, 2006 moved to Initial T3F Meeting - December 21, 2006: Erroneous date discovered at initial entry)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 07:32, 7 January 2007

Attendees:

Bob Dolin, Woody Beeler, Craig Parker, Jim Case, Bernd Blobel, Hans Buitendijk, Charlie McCay

Agenda:

  • Purpose
  • Who does what?
  • Roles
  • Logistics
  • Tasks/Priorities

Purpose:

Everybody stated their perspective on the purpose of T3F.

Jim – Organization has grown exponentially size and scope and perception of what organization is trying to do. How to communicate across the organizational.
Organizational review of the working members.
What are the requirements these groups must fulfill for the committees.
Bernd – Agrees with organizational aspects indicated. Used to be able to sit around 1 table while now the TSC is around 140. Harmonizing issues from other organizations.
  • Difficulty using work products. Nothing to bind them together. Need tool to compile overall.
  • Harmonization of workproducts and tools with other organizations. ISO CEN vs. HL7 in service architecture. Service architecture needs to be in sync with RIM.
Craig – Agreed with Bernd and Jim. Restated in a different way. HL7 has a Products and Services task force. T3F is closely related to that team (what), while our task is How: organize committees to make good products and services to support.
Bob – Need to have a sense of HL7 priorities. Would be great if driven by Products & Services, but there always will be cart and horse issues. T3F needs to communicate back to the Board that prioritization process is needed. Jim: Also need clear mechanism to communicate priorities to membership so it is understood why.
Need to have process to re-use domain models. We have RMIMs, DMIMs, constraints on Clinical Statements. Help direct and prioritize tooling infrastructure and foster model re-use. Jim: Clarification that we need to advise the committee on tooling
Charlie – Clarify the processes by which we produce the goods we deliver. Frameworks and domain expertise. Promotion as well. What we are effecting. Would be effective way to deliver on.
Woody – Accept the notion that the current horizontal structure is a challenge. However we have an adoptive structure. Need to be very careful as we move to more hierarchical structure, particularly to ensure we maintain key knowledge.
Should focus on adequate coordination.
Hans – Initially thought of two areas of focus: organization/process and architecture. Based on others agreed that there is a need to address tooling needs as well as a third area. Not to create tooling, rather to provide input. Prioritization of needs is outside the scope of T3F, but important to re-enforce that without prioritization on what HL7 is trying to do that T3F cannot be as successful.

Roles/Who does What

We reviewed how to address leadership and facilitation.

  • Hans indicated that, while the invite stated he was leading the team, this was not his assumption. He would liaise with the Board, provide background on ORC/SITF/etc., would not be a voting member.
  • Jim indicated that representing constituents (Domain TCs for him) and facilitating at the same time would be very difficult and not desirable for him.
  • There was consideration to have one co-chair from the three TC/SIG representatives and one from the international representatives.
  • Charlie indicated that we should consider the three areas (organization, architecture, process & tooling) as an opportunity to get representation.
  • After further discussion the motion was made to nominate Bob Dolin as the chair. The motion was carried.

We clarified that the duration of the T3F is not fixed. The focus is on transition to put a Technical Directorate in place. A combination of progress on TCO (timing based in part on financial viability) and T3F recommended transition steps will drive duration.

Bob indicated that he sees the duration 3-6 months, not too long.

Woody indicated a concern in general that a TCO position is challenging in the HL7 environment given that everybody in HL7 are technical leaders. It requires a special person to work well with everybody.

We agreed to distribute our efforts into three areas and identify two people for each area to take the lead.

  • Organization -
  • Architecture – Bernd Blobel
  • Process & Tooling -

Woody and Charlie would be willing to work in either area. Bern expressed an interest for Architecture that would also help focus on harmonization/synchronization with other standards organization.

We will pick up this discussion next round.

Logistics

We need to get a wiki site to facilitate discussions. Craig will set up a wiki site with security.

We need to get a list service. Bob or Woody (?) is going to get this in place through HQ.

On Sunday, Jan 7, there is a briefing meeting in preparation for the Monday Q1 update session. Objective is to provide a progress update. We agreed to meet on January 4, 14:00 – 16:00 EST to continue our discussion from today. Bob will set up the conference call specifics.

Hans will send with the minutes the notes from Liora on T3F priorities/thoughts. He also will include the Organization Visio and other documents that may be of interest/use to get background.


Support

Liora’s Document on T3F Organization:

Staff should poll members to determine 2 1-hour meeting times between now and the SD WGM

  • include 3 elected from TSC; Bd liaison (Liora? Hans? other?); affiliate rep (as soon as determined) and Board appointee
  • suggest: noon ET 2nd/4th Monday

For Board agenda: review and comment on initial T3F agenda, per below

Initial T3F agenda:

  1. leadership: chair or co-chairs: one elected, one appointed? topic for Board to discuss
  2. self-definition: mission statement
  3. projects & priorities: see list below; T3F should discuss, set priorities, timelines; suggest the T3F proposes a priority and reviews with BoD and TSC in January if at all possible to a) create awareness, b) get buy-in.
  4. work structure: within and between WGM; suggest bi-weekly telecons outside WGM; within WGM, suggest M-T-Th-F 8:00-9am;

Projects & priorities:

Technical: (from the original Board charter)

  • Define parameters of an HL7 technical architecture including:
    • Relationship among HL7 technical work products including specifications, implementation guides and tools.
    • Relationship of those products to external products/standards
  • Define the relationship of these products to the HL7 Products & Services strategy.
  • Establish an approach to meeting new product requirements identified by the Products & Services Task Force.

(added later, as illustrations of the above)

  • Harmonization of work products: what are the processes and how are they managed?
  • When to create a new specification and when to constrain an existing specification?
  • When to use messaging and when to use a service oriented architecture?
  • When to use a message and when to use a document?

(issues raised during the discussion of the election)

Technical coordination and structures:

  • How will the T3F (and future Technical Directorate) work with the TSC, the Affiliates, MNM and the ARB?
  • How will the structure and function of the TSC and ARB change to meet the objectives of the ORC and SITF?
  • Continued need to distinguish TCs from SIGs: is this still functional?
  • Need for formal project teams managed by TCs (2- or 3-tier organization, but not TC/SIG)?
  • Need for RIM TC?
  • Need for Clinical Statement &/or TermInfo TC?
  • Need for other consolidation/refinement of committee structures?