2018-09-29 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to: navigation, search

TSC Saturday meeting for Baltimore WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Chesapeake

Date: 2018-09-29
Time:
9:00 AM
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 Board Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Floyd Eisenberg HL7 Clinical SD Co-Chair
x Russ Hamm HL7 Infrastructure SD Co-chair
x Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Co-Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 Infrastructure SD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler TSC Chair, Administrative SD Co-Chair
x Wayne Kubick HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Ken McCaslin Adhoc Member
x Mary Kay McDaniel Administrative SD Co-Chair
x Riki Merrick Administrative SD Co-Chair Elect
x Melva Peters HL7 Clinical SD Co-Chair
x John Roberts Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
x Andy Stechishin HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
x Sandra Stuart HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
x Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Agenda Topics

  1. To Be Slotted
    1. Ballot Naming
    2. Work Group Health


Q1 - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda
  3. TSC Temperature Check (15 min)
    1. What are we doing well?
    2. What could we improve?
    3. What is the current personal status of each member?
  4. Ballot Lessons Learned

Q2 - 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Carryover from Q1
  2. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  3. Role and responsibilities of Steering Divisions
    1. Request from Arden Syntax to move to Clinical
    2. Role of Organizational Support WGs
  4. Da Vinci and other accelerator projects
    • CIMI management group?

Q3 - 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Role and responsibilities of Management Groups
    • Messaging to Product Management Council
    • Management Group health metrics
  2. Approval items from previous weeks referred for discussion:
    1. Review/Approve Mission and Charter Template for Steering Divisions
      • Referred by John Roberts: Need to specifically state that a Steering Division mission is to identify and resolve any scope gaps or redundancies between the Working Groups of the Steering Division and between the Steering Division and other Steering Divisions.
      • Referred by Clinical Steering Division: Need comments from other Steering Divisions. Need to determine if SAIF statement is appropriate for Steering Division.
      • Referred by Organizational Support Steering Division
    2. Review/Approve DMP for Steering Divisions
      • Referred by Clinical Steering Division: Need comments from other Steering Divisions
      • Referred by Organizational Support Steering Division
    3. Approval of updated DMP Addendum at TSC Tracker 17703
      • Referred by ARB et al - will display comments on call

Q4 - 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. Architecture and Tooling update
    1. JIRA ballot testing update
  2. Messaging at cochair dinner, general session
    1. Taking a hard line on deadlines
    2. New deadlines
    3. Product Family Management Groups have the authority to stop poor quality content from going to ballot or publication if it fails to meet identified product quality criteria
    4. Cochair responsibilities to administer appropriate HL7 processes as they apply to WGs

Sunday evening Agenda Topics

  1. ArB
  2. Management Group Updates
    1. FHIR
    2. CDAMG
    3. V2MG

Wednesday lunch

  1. Issues from the week
  2. Formalizing Product Family Management Council
  3. (September) Review TSC SWOT

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    1. No guests
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda
    1. No additions
  3. TSC Temperature Check (15 min)
    1. What are we doing well?
    2. What could we improve?
      • Austin: We are coping well with issues as they arise. Have struggled with larger questions about large architectures and we could’ve handled that better.
      • Lorraine: What we do well is support each other. What we can improve can move to group discussion.
      • Ken: At TSC we’re getting some new blood which is positive, and we do support each other well.
      • Tony: Hasn’t retired yet but can’t afford HL7 when he does. Wayne notes the Woody Beeler Foundation may be able to help. TSC should keep
      • Jean: Da Vinci is producing products that we know, at least. Wayne: But they are being criticized for not being transparent enough. Melva: They engaged early but haven’t continued to come to the WGs as the work has gone on. Floyd has had similar struggles.
      • Austin: The role of the cochairs is critical in that communication. Wayne: We do need to retrain the cochairs. It’s a good thing if groups come in but we have to make it inviting rather than painful. Lorraine: We also need to make sure these external project teams understand what’s expected of them.
      • MK: When we try to do the right thing, we get different answers about what is needed and required. Wayne has provided Jocelyn with a sample communication plan but hasn’t seen one.
      • Wayne asks if MK will be a communication liaison between TSC and Da Vinci. MK states she is willing to do that. ##*Lorraine: At one point we talked about putting together a simple, basic orientation for new project team members. That might be a useful solution to some of these pain points. Melva notes that a lot of the late projects this time were because the people were new. Wayne: We need a plan for them for the beginning and then a checklist at the end to ensure they’ve checked all the boxes.
      • Jean: We’re much better at knowing what’s going on in the organization. Do people know what the TSC is for, and do other people know? Our role needs to be more clear. Discussion over adding ad hoc members to TSC to serve as liaisons with these big projects. Decision that they don’t have to be a TSC member.
      • Wayne: The BAM has an area that we’ve never implemented which is new things coming in need a proof of concept. Lorraine: We can make this part of the PSS process. Some of the new tooling will make it easier. Austin asks about timing. Wayne: It should be released before the end of the year.
        • MOTION to appoint Mary Kay as a formal liaison to the Da Vinci Project:
  4. Ballot Lessons Learned
    1. Reviewed document
      • TSC ballot deadline calendar: this would show various TSC deadlines, appeal dates, etc. that would be integrated into existing publishing calendar. Jean notes that FHIR dates are different than others and that creates confusion. Lorraine: They also don’t know that if they’re going to publish differently they have to consult the publishing WG. Agreement that deadlines need to be clearly documented and published. Lorraine: We need to hold to the deadlines also. Austin notes that we used to have an earlier process step before the NIB.
      • Require email address for primary contact and publishing facilitator on the NIB: currently it is a field that is not required. People sometimes treat the positions as honorary rather than as a serious role. Discussion over publishing facilitators not knowing they are in that role. Russ:Should Facilitator or Co-Chair be primarily responsible for ballot tasks related to projects? Wayne: All facilitators 1) Should be aware that they’re named in the PSS and primarily responsible (no “honorary” positions, not filling on of names without notifying who’s named, and 2) Co-Chairs should always be copied as well.
        • ACTION: Need to harvest the email addresses of project leads/publication facilitators for the currently cycle’s projects, and create a distribution list that also includes cochairs. Lorraine notes that this already exists on the NIB. Email addresses need to be harvested from the NIBs and supplement with email addresses of the WGs that are sponsoring and cosponsoring those NIBs. Can then email with deadlines and any other important information for this cycle. The list is intended to become our channel for communicating those those directly in this cycle. It’s not on a per project basis. Floyd: We need to better define the content deadline – often gets ignored in the non-V3 world.
      • Riki: Some form of document should be ready at the time of the NIB; not much time between NIB and initial content. Andy: There are pros and cons on that. Sometimes it’s still a work in process. Work activities are scheduled around the calendar. Need to have a date that it will be pulled if not ready. Should be a space on the PSS to add the email address. Discussion over possibility of pre-filling the NIB.
        • ACTION: Anne to pull out publishing calendar and slot in draft TSC deadlines/appeal dates.
      • Lorraine: When we added cosponsor WGs to the PSS and their level of involvement, I don’t think anyone is enforcing formal cosponsor review of the content before ballot. Austin: We could automate that on Confluence.
      • Should we delegate delayed opening decisions to the management groups? Today it is a TSC question. There is a big impact on Lynn; if we have multiple groups making those decisions it could become difficult. Decision that since it affects staff resources, TSC should still be the decision maker. Austin: So should we delegate the authority to chair and CTO to say no? Ken: You guys should be the final authority after TSC attempts to manage. MK: If people are given an explicit timeline, they only have to wait until the next ballot. What is the big deal about 3 months? Andy: There are times when it’s important. Discussion over communication with Lynn being important with content deadlines. Missing the deadline for a couple of hours is something staff can work with. When it starts going beyond a day then we need to start thinking about that being outside of window. MK: What are we costing the organization with these delays in dollars? Austin: It’s a big variable depending on the product. Jean: If a project comes and says they’re going to be late by a week, we could charge them. Lorraine: The effects on the ballot cycle affect everyone.
        • ACTION/Outcome: Decision on delayed ballots should be retained by TSC
      • Management groups need to establish their ballot deadlines and communicate them clearly as well to their product family. SGB should probably craft a precept on this. FHIR does this well. Discussion over the fact that it’s only publicized on Zulip and should be wider. Publishing calendar is V3 focused; every product family should have one of their own. Tony: We have gforge, wiki, website, google, github, Zulip…we need a designated channel. In the old days, if it wasn’t on the listserve, it didn’t happen. Announcements should be on the listserve. Lorraine: Zulip is fine for conversation, but it can’t be the place for official stuff. Need to consider that we’re changing Lynn’s world on how we’re publishing things with the product websites.
        • ACTION: Clarify official communication channel
      • Management groups’ role needs to be clarified in quality products going to ballot. FHIR has quality management plan. V3 did at one point. Management Groups need to create quality plan and enforce it. They can say no to content that doesn’t meet their quality requirements. This addresses a large chunk of our content, but we don’t have management groups for everything. Need to figure out how to deal with that piece. Jean: We’re basically saying that they don’t have to feel bad for saying no. They need to tell WGs that they need time to review. Can differentiate it based on where they are in terms of maturity and ballot type. Level of rigor will depend on level of ballot. Plan should include how this responsibility will be enforced. Discussion over whether FMG, for example, reviewed all ballots for quality. Normative content was reviewed more carefully. Could have a checklist. Methodology group creates the criteria for quality review, and management group enforces.
        • ACTION: Communicate this to management groups this week

Q2 - 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Ballot Lessons Learned – Continued
    1. Require PSS’s to be approved a ballot cycle in advance:
      • Floyd: If it’s contract related, that could be a challenge.
        • MOTION to require PS’s to be approved a ballot cycle in advance: Ken/Wayne
      • Floyd: Concerned about the appearance to the outside world. We should at least allow investigative and comment ballots to go through. Lorraine: Need to get people to understand that the PSS comes before the work. This would force people to get the PSS out at the right time. Ken: Three meetings a year should give you plenty of roadmap to do things. We could outline an exception process. Lorraine: Investigative and reaffirmation ballots could be an exception.
        • AMENDED MOTION: Other than investigative and reaffirmation ballots, PSSs must be approved a ballot cycle in advance: Ken/Wayne
      • Floyd: Still a little concerned. We may be encouraging people to do work behind the scenes. Ken: I think we’re asking for a change in behavior to get people to plan and look further down the road. If it doesn’t work we can come back and adjust it. We’re encouraging people to make road maps. Austin: Practical problem is how to roll this out. Would have to roll out over at least two cycles. Lorraine: Funded projects are often funded only for one cycle. John: Often groups are approached by ONC, etc. and asked to work on a project that gets shoved through quickly and it isn’t ideal.
      • Wayne: We want people to define their project and get it approved in advance. If you can’t the TSC can work with you. Austin: We could alternatively say PSSs are due a month before the WGM rather than a week after. Short ballot cycles may not be enough time. Lorraine: US Realm and ARB are now asking for a weeks’ notice. Our current process is that it has to be submitted to PMO and be approved before ballot open. Is what we’re for is finished approval by the due date or submitted to PMO? Ken: We would come into this WGM knowing what projects are approved for the next ballot cycle. Lorraine: So we’re saying that the deadline for a PSS to be fully through the approval cycle (including TSC) is a month before the WGM prior to the ballot cycle, except investigative and reaffirmation.
        • AMENDED MOTION: For projects other than investigative and reaffirmations, to submit a NIB, your PSS must have been approved by TSC a minimum of four weeks before the start of the WGM that precedes the NIB deadline: Ken/Wayne
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • Lorraine: When we communicate we should note that appeals can be made to the TSC. MK: We need to be really clear on when a PSS is really intended to be created and that you don’t have to do any requirements documentation, it has to just be the scope of what you think you’re doing. Ken: To create a roadmap of how we would roll this out, we should present to cochairs on Monday night; the Tuesday TSC presentation should roll it out, and we should target May at the earliest to put this in place. Austin: So we’ll be saying a month prior to the May WGM, your projects for the September ballot cycle need to be approved by the TSC. Group looks at theoretical dates for upcoming cycles.
        • MOTION that we ask that WGs provide a clear definition in the PSS of whether they plan to ballot in May or September with Steering Division verifying that the date is clear in the PSS: Ken/Floyd
      • Discussion over the fact that submissions to PMO will have to be adjusted.
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • Fuzziness between US Realm vs. Universal
        • People just aren’t sure how to choose and choose the incorrect designation. MK: until there’s a way for you to see changes to the PSS this will continue to be confusing. Discussion over introducing this plus rollout of new ballot procedure and PSS procedures. Paul: In the new process, when a committee has approved something and then a further group has made change, does the original group need to re-review, or just be advised? Lorraine: We’re not changing the process, we’re just automating it. Austin: It solves the problem of multiple versions of the PSS floating around. Floyd: Isn’t understanding US Realm vs. Universal, isn’t it just an education issue? Austin: Some of it is making clear what our requirements are to have a project be universal. Ken: It’s about who is going to participate in the implementation. Austin: need to flesh out the criteria to be universal. Wayne: Often it’s funded in the US but has universal applicability. Need to put together a set of guidelines. One recommendation may be to change the form to handle something in between those two. Ken: Part of the issue is that when we try to put it in one US Realm bucket, there’s US regulated and then there’s US but potentially Universal without international participants yet. Jean: If you declare my project to be universal, you have to prove you’re universal by having international participation.
          • ACTION: SGB to look at the US Realm vs. Universal issue
  2. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
    • ACTION: Move to conference call. Wayne: We do have requirement for remaining eligible.
  3. Role and responsibilities of Steering Divisions
    1. Request from Arden Syntax to move to Clinical
      • MOTION to deny request to move Arden Syntax to the Clinical SD: Ken/Jean
        • Melva: My problem is if Arden had done with OO and others did immediately after we’d made the change, we would have been okay with this. But now because of the timing, we’re saying no. Jean: I thought what we were saying to the groups was if you don’t like where we’ve put you and you have a good reason, then they can move. OO and Devices thought they had a good reason. Melva: Arden feels they have a good reason. Jean: But most of us don’t agree with it. Before we can vote on the motion we need to come to some agreement on what we mean the SDs to be. Floyd: Their rationale was that they work very closely with CQI and CDS. You have to be able to work directly with the people who define the resources. If CQI and CDS belong in Clinical, they have a rationale. Ken: We’re going to lay down the process or we’re not. I wasn’t comfortable that we let people move. I don’t think we allow WGs to willy nilly move around until our processes are in place and Steering Divisions are comfortable with who and what they are. After that, they still feel they’re in the wrong place then we can revisit. Melva: But we need to consider who they are closely aligned with in terms of projects. Lorraine: WE have clarifying roles and responsibilities, and we have a WG who has identified a challenge based on their processes. Maybe Arden should be a project under CDS? Austin: I originally suggested that. One possibility is we agree to a transfer only on the condition that they strongly consider merging with CDS. Floyd: They state that they split off for specific reasons.
        • VOTE: Clinical SD abstains. Remaining in favor.
      • Paul: Perhaps the other groups should move to Infrastructure? Does CDS do clinical work or infrastructural work that is used in the clinical space? Austin: They do both. Is there an alternative to forcing them to be in one of the other? Perhaps there should be another group? Ken: You might want to take a look at Hans’ email to the TSC when he constructed his comments about OO. He stated OO wasn’t formed correctly and there should be a fifth group. Jean: Arden is so infrastructure based. CQI is so clinical based. But the work products fall in the clinical space. If CDS said they wanted to move to infrastructure, I would object based on what they say they’re doing. When we communicate to Arden, we need to say this is the point behind constructing these steering divisions – because of the type of work being done. We haven’t clearly expressed the point of the SDs to the WGs. Floyd: What if Arden decided to merge with CDS? Confirmation that they could do that. Discussion over whether that would mean that CDS would then have to move to Infrastructure.
    2. Role of Organizational Support WGs
      • Role of publishing WG has diminished over time. What are we doing with the steering division and its WGs? Education is now an advisory committee. Lorraine: They’ve always been the bridge between the members and the staff. It’s the housekeeping of the organization. The impact and the role of what they’re doing has changed. The only way we get volunteers into these things are if they feel like they’re doing important work. We’re changing how we’re publishing a lot of our specs, which has many implications. Paul: Part of our problem in EST and Publishing is we’ve allowed a usurping of their scope. It’s diminished their purpose and value. If there’s any committee that defines what an SDO does, it is Publishing. What is the role of publishing within the organization? Who do we want to allow to be responsible for the publication of the standards within the families? Reviewed list of WGs in the SD and their status. Lorraine: Need to be very clear about the roles, stop going around them and support them instead. Paul: Need to get clear on EST’s role – intent was to bring member knowledge into HQ activities. Need to reinforce that or change it. Wayne notes that the board assigns things to HQ with a date and then they have to get it done. Jean: The same thing happened in education. Things become board driven and then you’re not sure why you’re there.

Q3 - 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Role of Organizational Support WGs, continued
    • Discussion over remaining four WGs. Groups are very small. No conclusion at this time but it bears watching. Immediate question: what do we do about Publishing? Need to make sure things like FHIR publishing moves into publishing. Discussion over how Publishing has changed. When FHIR started, it was decided that they would have their own process at first and then they would move into organizational publishing. One project under the ONC funded grant is to redo the FHIR publishing process so Grahame is out of the future. Publishing is in no position to take on FHIR currently. Lorraine: For everything else we separate editing and publishing. Need to minimize the differences between the families. Austin: So we need to have a publishing WG with a unified publishing process that applies to the majority of our products. Need to make efforts towards reconstituting the Publishing WG. Discussion over whether or not management group has any role; management groups coordinate with Publishing. Jean: What if FHIR, CIMI don’t want to involve Publishing, or we can’t find people willing to do the housekeeping, what do we do? Lorraine: They need help understanding that they should. We need to recruit, support, and encourage.
    • Wayne notes that we still have the problem with contractual obligations with funding and Board initiatives. We could provide input to the board for AMG goals. Contract issues are another issue. Lorraine: Even with the contracted stuff, we should build in responsibilities to report and update to the various groups. MK: If we’re publishing something that has an HL7 logo on it, it needs to be the responsibility of HL7. We’re discussing a group that is fundamental to what HL7 does. Jean: It may mean that it’s more onerous but getting the HL7 stamp means you have to work with our processes.
      • MOTION that we need to review, amend, and support the scope of Publishing as being responsible for the publication of all artifacts under the HL7 banner: Paul/MK
        • Discussion over what this motion means in terms of the current landscape. Can’t expect Brian to do this on its own. Need to figure out how to enable and implement. Austin will be announcing a cochair opening in Publishing at the cochair dinner. The position is open because of Pete’s death.
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • Lorraine: Awhile back EST and SGB had a joint meeting regarding precepts. At the time they said they didn’t think they needed that. But they may be changing their mind on that. May need precepts for EST and Publishing.
  2. Da Vinci and other accelerator projects
    • Lorraine: One challenge is trying to figure out when the work being done on private calls must be publicly available on HL7 calls. Ken: Will having PSSs due earlier help this problem? Lorraine: It’s the interaction with the WG while the work is being done – sometimes it changes after the work has started and no one knows. Ken: The WG could reject changes. Paul: If we had a requirement that we saw content earlier, that would help. Jean: That’s the problem in many of these cases – the content is being way too late. Lorraine: They don’t seem to feel the need to engage in regularly scheduled calls. Ken: We haven’t stood up and said you can’t ballot because they haven’t engaged in correct behavior. Melva: Where would I go to find the PSSs for the Da Vinci projects? Wayne: We could say in order for us to do a quality job, we need this from you. MK directs Anne to display the Da Vinci page on the HL7 website. No one knew this was there.
    • Melva notes that Pharmacy wasn’t involved in the 30 Day Medication Reconciliation project; was sponsored by CQI. Lorraine: If more than 50% of the material was developed on non-Hl7 calls, then it’s external content and must be reviewed by ARB. Need to make sure there is sufficient time for ARB review given that the content will be developed after the PSS stage.
    • Austin: What do we do to make sure that the WGs get the opportunity to review this content that is being developed external to HL7 after the PSS? Jean: We need to facilitate the WGs saying no when material isn’t developed on time. Paul: We need to publicly advise the WGs to follow the process. Floyd: We have a content review in our process.
    • We need each WG to assure that 1) there’s a phone number which anyone and join and 2) they bring it to review before it’s approved. If that doesn’t happen, then ARB has to look at it.
    • Ken: So some WGs aren’t following process. OO is following process and we could use them as an example. Lorraine: Some WGs don’t understand it’s their responsibility to approve the material before it does to ballot; cochairs have to make sure that it happens. WGs/cochairs need some support. Russ asks about building this into the PSS.
    • MK: When we get something being built with consultants’ content, you can’t hand over these guides and expect anyone to get through them in a week or two. When is the content date that would work? Austin: The content deadline is a month before ballot open that people aren’t heeding. Needs to be mandatory for everything. If you miss the initial content deadline, then they can say you’re not going to ballot. John: If we have post-PSS approval, they’re probably in violation of the preponderance of influence rule. Lorraine: Work products are supposed to be on an HL7, open platform. The Da Vinci development sites are closed.
      • MOTION to make initial content deadline applicable to all work product and ensure content is available on HL7-managed platforms open to all HL7 members: Ken/Floyd
    • Lorraine: It’s the prerogative of the sponsoring WG to determine what they need to be comfortable.
      • AMENDED MOTION that WGs are responsible for reviewing and approving final content prior to balloting; in order to facilitate that, project teams must ensure content is available on HL7 managed platforms no later than the content deadlines as identified on the publishing calendar, or such earlier date as established by the product management group and/or WG: Ken/Floyd
      • VOTE: All in favor
      • ACTION: Ken to work with Lynn to fix the publishing calendar
    • Need to communicate to cochairs that they have the authority to enforce these rules.
  3. Approval items from previous weeks referred for discussion:
    1. Review/Approve Mission and Charter Template for Steering Divisions
      • Referred by John Roberts: Need to specifically state that a Steering Division mission is to identify and resolve any scope gaps or redundancies between the Working Groups of the Steering Division and between the Steering Division and other Steering Divisions.
      • Referred by Clinical Steering Division: Need comments from other Steering Divisions. Need to determine if SAIF statement is appropriate for Steering Division.
      • Referred by Organizational Support Steering Division
    2. Review/Approve DMP for Steering Divisions
      • Referred by Clinical Steering Division: Need comments from other Steering Divisions
      • Referred by Organizational Support Steering Division
    3. Approval of updated DMP Addendum at TSC Tracker 17703
      • Referred by ARB et al - will display comments on call
        • ACTION: Move these to next conference call

Q4 - 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. JIRA ballot testing update
    • Issue last time was training schedule. Decision needs to be made if we’re going to do the pilot in January. Lloyd’s been creating a user guide as he goes along. Test plan is scheduled to begin two weeks from now on a tight schedule. Wayne: The sense of urgency was doing R4 in the pilot, which didn’t happen. We could do a limited test on one IG perhaps with the goal of doing the full pilot in Montreal. Lorraine: We should continue on the current schedule of testing even if we do a limited pilot this time. Lorraine: What is the required timeframe to get appropriate training in place? Austin: Depends on projects you’re picking for the pilot. The pilot project needs to be small and target audience needs to be aware that they’re guinea pigs. Lorraine: Managing affiliate and organizational balloting is going to be the most difficult. It’s not necessarily straightforward and we may have glossed over that part. Integration with the ballot desktop needs to be considered.
      • Chuck Jaffe arrives
    • Austin: The pilot needs to understand that they’re risking the whole ballot if it doesn’t work. Need to have a contingency to come back to spreadsheet. Lorraine: Might be helpful to lay out a timeline of what we’re changing when for the organization to review. Sandy: maybe we should do a designated out of cycle ballot instead. Austin: That causes other issues. Should chat with Lynn to see if an out of cycle is possible.
      • ACTION: Chat with Lynn re: out of cycle ballot possibility
      • ACTION: Flesh out training program: Jean, Melva, Floyd, Ken
      • ACTION: Jean and Wayne to discuss finalizing schedule with Lloyd
  2. Architecture and Tooling update
    • Discussion over GoMembers. Behind in updates. Bandwidth at the office has been constrained. DJ is working on fixes.
    • Wayne has a tooling plan with a roadmap that he submitted to the EC for review, comment and approval; has not received feedback.
      • Chuck departs
    • Wayne will be asking the board for approval. Tooling plan has four categories – collaborative tools, standards development, administrative processes, and implementation support. Wayne has been working with DJ on moving things to the cloud, making things more secure, and need to revisit disaster recovery. Implementation support is a new initiative that is being examined. The first iteration was the collaboration stuff, like JIRA and Confluence.
    • Product Roadmap – what are we going to do with our product families, and where are they in their lifecycle? It’s not the state of adoption or implementation, it’s the state of development. Austin: WE need to clarify that with the board – they think there’s one curve. FHIR is obviously still in a growth stage and causes tension within the organization. CDA is stable yet still expanding. Lorraine notes that it is still dependent on V3. Working on C-CDA to FHIR migration.
      • Calvin arrives
    • MK notes that there are around 2 million CDA documents out there that are incomplete and that you can’t use. Wayne suggests moving that to the management group. 2.1 may be the last release of the base standard. Likely to be around for awhile – not in decline. Hope it’s mature and that it becomes more stable. Third party may be the way to move it forward. C-CDA to FHIR migration is funded by ONC. There is a separate CDA on FHIR project. Giorgio: need to represent CDA in a FHIR document. Need to create extension to represent the CDA information in FHIR. What do we want to promote? Wayne: John Moehrke has been adapting the IHE profiles. Because XDS is embedded in Europe and CDA is underneath XDS, we’re been having difficulty getting traction for FHIR in Europe. Jean: We need to figure out how to create a CDA document in FHIR. Need to add to roadmap.
    • V3: In a decline phase. Limited adoption with production installations in some locations and domains. Complex legacy tooling that is challenging to maintain and support. Jean: in MnM’s swot we mentioned that we have V3 stuff that we don’t want to throw away but where does it go/who takes it on? Lorraine notes that InfoWay may be able to help as they created some solutions. Wayne has told FDA that they’re going to keep it going if they want to use it. CMS eCQM is entirely based on V3, Floyd notes. Need to encourage them to convert to FHIR. Is no longer under continuous maintenance. Lorraine notes that there are some things still under STU. Lorraine: Need to make sure everything is pointing to the web based version.
    • V2: Original flagship standard. Billions of transactions each day. It’s mature and not in rapid decline, more like a slow decline over decades. Should we create new versions? People tend to cherry pick. Could issue new IGs and updates with extensions instead of new versions. Tony: Could publish just the vocabulary or a new data point instead of all 17 chapters. Looking at investing in conversion to a web specification. Calvin: The board would benefit from a strong decision from the TSC on this topic. Tony: Pressure comes to add a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and it percolates up into the IGs. Question is having manpower to maintain it.
      • MOTION that we continue to support V2 in maintenance mode and support the community driving V2 interfaces, and recommend that the board support the modernization of the publication process: Ken/Lorraine
      • VOTE: Wayne abstains. Remaining in favor. Board chair present and included in that total.
    • Consistency of tooling across product families is an issue. UTG, JIRA, web publishing of specifications were efforts to address this issue.
    • Reviewed sections of Grahame’s article on tooling traps. Only worth funding if it leads to increased revenue.
    • Reviewed guiding principles and tooling goals. Move toward common platforms; explore using FHIR publishing for other product families; replace ballot desktop; replace help desk/FAQ software. Discussion over GoMembers issues.
    • FHIR ONC-Funded tooling projects: proposed activities are testing and implementing FHIR ballot process; re-engineer FHIR build and publication process; implement an easy to use profile comparison functionality in FHIR profile repository tool; plan and implement a web-based FHIR profile registry tool and make it publicly accessible; other mutually agreed upon tools to support development of resources or profiles; conformance testing strategy. Over the summer, ONC transferred the tool for e-prescribing to NCPDP and said we could do that for FHIR certification. Board will have to look at whether they want to do.
    • C-CDA and Other ONC-funded projects include reballoting companion guide, updgrade C-CDA example search tool, finalize UTG, errata process improvement, implementation-a-thons, improve integration of CIMI models. Lorraine notes that last one is complicated. Wayne agrees; we need to define that further.
  3. Messaging at cochair dinner, general session, international council
    • Passing of Pete Gilbert and resulting open cochair position
    • Acknowledge product management groups and present representatives
    1. Taking a hard line on deadlines
      • Will support cochair decisions. Methodology groups determine quality criteria.
    2. New deadlines
    3. Product Family Management Groups have the authority to stop poor quality content from going to ballot or publication if it fails to meet identified product quality criteria
    4. Cochair responsibilities to administer appropriate HL7 processes as they apply to WGs
    5. JIRA balloting – we’ll begin piloting and testing imminently and ask for interested parties to contact Wayne. Melva notes that testing will be important message to international council.
    6. TSC may not approve a project that doesn’t fit with HL7’s mission and goals
    7. RDAM messaging
  4. Adjourned at 5:15 pm Eastern
  5. Parking Lot
    • CIMI Management Group
    • Management Group health metrics


Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Need to harvest the email addresses of project leads/publication facilitators for the currently cycle’s projects, and create a distribution list that also includes co-chairs.
  • Anne to pull out publishing calendar and slot in draft TSC deadlines/appeal dates
  • Clarify official channel on which management groups should communicate ballot deadlines
  • SGB to look at US realm vs. Universal issue
  • Add review and re-confirm ArB membership to upcoming conference call
  • Ken to work with Lynn to update/modernize the publishing calendar
  • Add referred documents to next agenda
  • Flesh out JIRA training program: Jean, Melva, Floyd, Ken
  • Jean and Wayne to discuss finalizing JIRA schedule with Lloyd
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .

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.