Difference between revisions of "SSDMeeting2008 05 05"
(New page: <p><center><big><b>SSD Steering Group</b></big></center></p> <center><small>Minutes of May 5, 2008</small></center> <p></p> <table width=100%> <tr><th width=20%>Name</th><th width=35%>Orga...)
Latest revision as of 18:04, 6 May 2008
|Calvin Beebe||Mayo Clinicemail@example.com||SD|
|Pat Van Dyke||Delta Dental Plans Associationfirstname.lastname@example.org||EHR|
|Susan Lepping||Siemens Medical Solutions Health Servicesemail@example.com||FM|
|Craig Parker||Arizona State Universityfirstname.lastname@example.org||CDS|
|Hans Buitendjh||Siemens Healthcare||Hans.email@example.com||OO|
|Corey Spears||Practice Partner||CoreySpears@McKesson.com||EHR|
|Jean Fenaro||McKesson Provider Technologies||Jean.fenaro@McKesson.com||PA|
|Kathleen Connor||Fox Systems Inc.||firstname.lastname@example.org||FM|
- 1 Quorum Rules for the SSD-SD
- 2 Support of E-Mail Votes
- 3 Mission & Charter statements
- 4 Working Group in Good Standing
- 5 Revised Project Scope Form
- 6 Working Group Roadmaps
- 7 4 Questions for Work Groups
- 8 Question about scope changes and ballot pools
- 9 New balloting procedure
- 10 Merging Administrative TC to the Work Group
Quorum Rules for the SSD-SD
Currently there are 10 committees that are apart of the Structure & Semantic Design Steering Division. A question of what constitutes quorum was discussed and the following motion was offered.
Hans Buitendjh: Motion that 5 committees be represented by co-chairs for quorum. The chair can vote for their committee as well as cast another vote as chair of the SD in the case of a tie. Second: Pat Van Dyke. For: 7: Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion Passed
Support of E-Mail Votes
The group discussed whether or not we should support SSD-SD votes via email ballots.
Kathleen Connor: Motion that E-mail votes will be allowed on proposals requiring fast turn around, with the same quorum requirements on the vote with duration of 1 week for that vote. Second: Hans Buitendjh For: 7: Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Motion Passed
Mission & Charter statements
With the changes within the HL7 organization, all SIGs and TCs are now Work Groups. Therefore there is a need to update all the Mission and Charter Statements for all the Work Groups and to have these reviewed by the SSD-SD. A sample Mission and Charter Statement will be placed on the TSC WIKI for Working Group reference.
Working Group in Good Standing
Calvin shared with the members that the TSC will be developing a series of metrics that will help identify those Work Groups who are in good standing. He indicated that he will be sharing information on the metrics to be collected. It is hoped that by collecting this information will enable us to improve our Work Group processes.
Revised Project Scope Form
It was noted that there is a change to the project scopes form to use for new project scopes. The current HL7 publishing schedule documents when the project scope statements are due.
Gregg and Calvin will inquire with the TSC, on the level of approvals required, in relation to the deadlines.
Working Group Roadmaps
Request to establish a roadmap for each Working Group was discussed. It was suggested that we should attempt to have the Work Group Roadmaps completed by the next Working Group Meeting.
4 Questions for Work Groups
The TSC would like to request that Work Groups think about and document the challenges and opportunities that exist for your SDO activities at HL7. In that regard, we request that you take back to your Work Group the following questions and spend 30 minutes to answer these questions.
Please attempt to have these answered prior to the Sept. Working Group Meeting:
1. What are the strengths of your Work Group?
2. What are the weaknesses of your Work Group?
3. What opportunities do you see that can be addressed by you Work Group?
4. What obstacles or threats to progress have you identified?
Question about scope changes and ballot pools
Hans identified a number of concerns about the ballot pools for ballots that under go scope changes. He had a number of questions that he would like review at the TSC:
At what point of time does the change of scope require the ballot pool to be reopened? What is the criterion that applies? When the scope has changed, what process is used to reopen the ballot pool? Withdraw the project and start over or can we reopen the ballot pool?
Gregg and Calvin will seek clarification from the TSC on this issue.
New balloting procedure
Patient Administration has some DSTUs that need to soon move to Normative status. However, even though it is known that there are implementations have occurred using these DTSU, the committee is having difficulty in getting any implementers to come forward and acknowledge that they are using it. Without official notification of two implementations, a number of DTSU standards could need to be re-balloted. This raises the question of what constitutes an implementation, how large does it need to be?
Gregg will take the issue to the TSC.
Merging Administrative TC to the Work Group
A number of Work Groups are having difficulty in reaching quorum and moving draft standards for trial use (DTSU) to normative status. A number of counties are actually using these DTSU standards. It was decided as part of the Work Group Mission and Charter review that we will need to change some Work Groups into Projects to ensure that work can progress.