2017-03-27 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to: navigation, search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2017-03-27
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian . Jean Duteau . Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus
x Wayne Kubick x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli x Freida Hall, GOM Expert
. . . .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters . Russ Hamm x Calvin Beebe x Andy Stechishin
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Austin Kreisler x Sandra Stuart
. . . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 x Lynn Laakso


. . . . .

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Agenda review and approval -
    • Approve Minutes of 2017-03-20 TSC Call Agenda
  2. Review action items
    • Tony to consult the BAM regarding product types
    • Wayne will talk to Stan about leveraging what the LDS does for other purposes, such as grooming people to assume other types of leadership roles
    • Anne and Freida to clarify process for WG name change
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) by the CIMI WG of the DESD at Project Insight 1316 and TSC Tracler 13115
      • Referred by FTSD/ARB:
      • 1) This project intends to produce/acquire/recommend tooling. I had asked in FTSD for the project to reach out to EST to co-sponsor to ensure that the HL7 committee responsible for tooling was involved, this appears not to have happened.
      • 2) Section 3.E is incorrectly marked 'No' to the potential creation/existence of executables.
      • 3) Section 3.G For confirmation, the artifact under ballot is the CIMI Logical Models only?
      • 4) I think section 5B is misunderstood, should not be checked although the intention to later publish also at ISO noted.
    • Project Approval Request by the Clinical Genomics WG of the DESD for Reaffirmation of HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Genomics; Pedigree, R1 at Project Insight 1287 and TSC Tracker 13120
      • 3.Referred by ARB: I is N/A - does this mean that there is no project document repository?
    • STU Publication Request by the FHIR-I WG of the FTSD for HL7 FHIR® Profile: Data Access Framework (DAF) Research, Release 1 at Project Insight 1143 and TSC Tracker 13119
      • Referred by SSD-SD: The wrong ballot cycle is cited in the request. Do US Realm publishing requests need to be approved by the USRSC? There was recent discussion at the USRSC that such requests need USRSC approval.
  4. Approval Items from Last week's e-vote approved 8-0-0 with FTSD, DESD, Freida, Jean, T3SD, ARB, SSD-SD, and Wayne voting:
  5. Approval items for this week:
  6. Discussion topics:
  7. Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    • SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
    • Ken to address STU extensions at the co-chair dinner
    • Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process

Minutes

  • Agenda review and approval -
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-03-20 TSC Call Agenda
  • Review action items
    • Tony to consult the BAM regarding product types
    • Wayne will talk to Stan about leveraging what the LDS does for other purposes, such as grooming people to assume other types of leadership roles
    • Anne and Freida to clarify process for WG name change
      • Add all actions to next week's agenda
  • Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Project Approval Request of Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) by the CIMI WG of the DESD at Project Insight 1316 and TSC Tracker 13115
    • Referred by FTSD/ARB:
      • 1) This project intends to produce/acquire/recommend tooling. I had asked in FTSD for the project to reach out to EST to co-sponsor to ensure that the HL7 committee responsible for tooling was involved, this appears not to have happened.
      • 2) Section 3.E is incorrectly marked 'No' to the potential creation/existence of executables.
      • 3) Section 3.G For confirmation, the artifact under ballot is the CIMI Logical Models only?
      • 4) I think section 5B is misunderstood, should not be checked although the intention to later publish also at ISO noted.
        • Discussion: Project is creating tooling but EST isn't involved. They were requested to add but so far hasn't. Austin noted that all the external drivers appear to be US government related but project is universal. They did bring to US Realm, and US Realm was satisfied that intent was to make it international. Wayne: Risky and cumbersome that this project has 10 cosponsors. Melva states that perhaps it doesn't have enough because of the wide impact across the organization. Wayne chatted with Stan re: CIMI on whether or not it is actually a product family as opposed to a WG. Lorraine notes that we have a process to determine that but we skipped around it when they were established as a WG. Ken: I think we were trying to understand what they would mean within the organization and now it's becoming clear. Lorraine: We skipped phase 1 and 2 in the BAM where we decide whether it's warranted. Paul: Do we need to hold up their project in the meantime? Wayne: We don't need to hold them up but we need to address it moving forward. Paul: We need to engage PLA on this issue.
        • ACTION: Paul to go back to CIMI to discuss.
    • Project Approval Request by the Clinical Genomics WG of the DESD for Reaffirmation of HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Genomics; Pedigree, R1 at Project Insight 1287 and TSC Tracker 13120
      • Referred by ARB: 3.I is N/A - does this mean that there is no project document repository?
        • Lynn: There is no repository because it's already published. Paul used the project definition link for the other reaffirmations.
          • MOTION to accept: Tony/Paul
          • AMENDED MOTION to accept with the addition of the project definition link in that space: Tony/Paul
          • VOTE: All in favor
    • STU Publication Request by the FHIR-I WG of the FTSD for HL7 FHIR® Profile: Data Access Framework (DAF) Research, Release 1 at Project Insight 1143 and TSC Tracker 13119
      • Referred by SSD-SD: The wrong ballot cycle is cited in the request. Do US Realm publishing requests need to be approved by the USRSC? There was recent discussion at the USRSC that such requests need USRSC approval.
        • Paul: It would make sense that the body responsible for things in that realm would approve. Wayne: I agree moving forward. Austin: Appears to be a change in process that hasn't been sorted out yet. Andy: May need to add to publication request form so we may need to go to PIC. Lorraine: Product family management should likely approve the publication request as well. Ballot reconciliation was approved at US Realm as well. Project number should be 1265 and the ballot cycle is incorrect.
          • ACTION: Anne to send issue to US Realm to determine if pub requests for US Realm projects should be sent to them before being approved by TSC
          • ACTION: Paul to go back to FHIR-I for corrections
          • ACTION: Add for next week
          • 2017-03-28 update: Requested corrections were made to the document and Austin changed his vote to in favor. Document sent for publishing.
  • Discussion topics:
    • TSC Essentialism - Wayne
      • Wayne presents the goals of simplification. Goals are to make HL7 less intimidating; so supporters can understand how we work; to use clear descriptive language and fewer acronyms. Facilitates clarity of WG functions so we can interact more efficiently and avoid people being spread so thin. Lastly, it allows a focus on projects rather than just WGs.
        • Wayne asks who won't be in Madrid: Andy and Freida won't be; Austin isn't sure. Maybe: Russ, Jean. Appears that we'll have quorum, however.
      • Displays top down view of potential structure. Andy: Product families report through SGB. Paul: We don't have any groups whose domain is just doing a task with respect to a product family. MnM has a product family function, but they are an infrastructure group doing methodologies. Arden may be the only one in the product family group but only because they wear all the hats. Might want to leave them where they are and recognize they are multifunctional. Austin: We haven't decided to pay the cost of separation of concerns by forming an Arden product family; it's a niche product that generally does not reach across a bunch of WGs to coordinate its work. It's fairly localized within a single WG. Paul: For the purpose of discussion, it might be useful to put Arden under that product family bucket. Wayne: Families could perhaps be a wing off the top. Discussion over the fact that FMG is still reporting to TSC so we haven't quite made it real yet that they go through SGB. Discussion to move product family management groups up above off of TSC or governance. Paul: If you want to gather those management groups together and call them out, then they could be parked where they have an existing role/hat. Ken asks if we are ready to move forward with this concept? Andy asks why interest groups are here - are they a separate steering division on peer with the other groups? Ken: As we're trying to put these things together, we're having them sit out to the side temporarily - then as we do the transition we'll have an easier definition of where to align them. There will still be more above line/below line definitions as we move through this. Perhaps we make line from functional support over to interest groups a dotted line. Andy: Also not showing international participation in this structure. Paul: This is more the organizational structure as opposed to the TSC structure. Paul: We should eyeball the previous PLA structures. Calvin: Does methodology live in one place, or is it spread through some of these? Paul: You could create another circle with management groups which was methodology groups but what's going to happen is you'll start seeing people appearing in multiple places. Calvin: Where do we think methodology lives in this diagram? Paul: It lives in infrastructure on this diagram. Would the non-FHIR user groups be components of the interest groups? FHIR user group is outside of HL7 in FHIR.org. Ken: Yes, they would be interest groups.
        • ACTION: All to look at structure and provide additional comments. Hoping to use Madrid to figure out next steps.
  • Adjourned at 12:00 pm Eastern
  • Add to next week's agenda:
  • Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    • SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
    • Ken to address STU extensions at the co-chair dinner
    • Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.