2018-10-03 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to: navigation, search

TSC Wednesday meeting for Baltimore WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Frederick

Date: 2018-10-03
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
? Russ Hamm HL7 Infrastructure SD Co-chair
? 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
Regrets 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
Regrets Melva Peters HL7 Clinical SD Co-Chair
? John Roberts Adhoc Member - GOM Expert
? Andy Stechishin HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
x Sandra Stuart HL7 Organizational Support SD Co-Chair
? Pat Van Dyke HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
x Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)


Wednesday lunch

  1. Issues from the week
  2. Da Vinci Listserve
  3. Recirculation request by the Vocabulary WG of the Infrastructure SD for Characteristics of a Value Set Definition, Release 1
  4. PSS for continuing projects…What do you do when you’re moving from an informative document towards a new implementation guide, or investigative project to an STU
  5. Formalizing Product Management Council
  6. (September) Review TSC SWOT

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Wayne chairing
  2. Issues from the week
    • Lorraine: An issue came up about Argonaut. The concern is that the Argonaut team, outside of HL7 is working on some content. The concern is that they’ll not bring it in. Wayne states it may be time to bring them back into the fold. The concern is that they’ll bring them back as de facto standards without being discussed – it just becomes part of US Core without having the right conversations.
    • Jean: At Infrastructure there was a mapping project brought up from SOA. In Pharmacy we had a comment about some mappings being produced. If something is being mapped across groups, what’s the right place for a cross venture mapping style project? Methodology and artifacts go to ITS, then the work of applying that should go on within the domains. Jean: This is mapping between 8 domains. Lorraine notes the 2 to FHIR PSS as another project that spans. Jean: If you’re across lots of WGs and families, who owns that? Wayne: Product families must be informed. Lorraine: Some are cosponsors under a primary that can manage it. Wayne: This sounds like a precept. Paul: The mapping exercise is consuming content from multiple families and the management groups should be informed but not owned by them. Calvin: Precept might be just governance guidance; if one of the groups will take ownership and communicate with the others. Jean: So then let’s say a group picks it up and no one understands why. Ken suggests OO might be the place. No matter who does it the domain WGs should stay involved. Wayne; How good are we at keeping cosponsors informed? Jean: It’s on a WG by WG basis. This is a process gap. Could we put together a tip sheet on cosponsorship? Is that something TSC does? Need to have minimum expectations. Lorraine: There was another discussion around what level you’re balloting at when you plan multiple levels – on the PSS do you check all of those boxes? Should you separate the informative PSS from the STU? Wayne: It’s the same flow for the same output, just at different stages. Jean: WE now have the opportunity to make the PSS better now that it’s in Confluence. Paul: The committee that’s leading has an obligation to the cosponsor, but the cosponsor needs to be engaged in soliciting updates/material as well. Calvin; It’s an opportune time to look at the process. As we engage external groups such as Da Vinci, we want our committees to be engaged and should ensure that the level of engagement keeps the transparency we need. Do we have the right sort of levels now that we’re moving into that kind of strategy? Lorraine: We’ve put the existing PSS in to Confluence and we’re testing the approval workflow piece. Next we need to look at the entire workflow. Wondering if it’s something we need a group with project services to look at.
    • Wayne: The FHIR reballot issue seemed to go pretty smoothly. Reconciliation is nearly complete for the normative content. Discussion over items deemed not related. Jean said they felt like there were items that they would’ve liked to mark considered for future use. Concern about getting the non-normative reconciliation done by the deadline.
    • Ken was given as task to figure out how to put the publishing calendars together. He reached out to Josh and they’re going to figure out how to use Confluence to do it.
    • Floyd: There was a problem with signing into WGs on Confluence. People should sign into the host WG, but some of the joining WGs are insisting people sign in with them too. Some data was lost for CQI. Discussion over some groups using Google docs; if they do that, they have to publish the links on HL7 sites. There were concerns of overwhelming the Confluence system as well. Lorraine notes there was a script issue as well that caused problems with adding rows. A warning was sent out saying to have a backup available. Some people did not receive such a warning. If anyone heard about it
  3. Da Vinci Listserve
    • There is a public Da Vinci listerve that anyone can sign up for. They send out frequent updates. MK has agreed to be the formal liaison. We’ve asked them for more updates and they are allowing people on their calls. They also have an HL7 page and a Confluence page. All conference calls will be in the conference call center.
  4. Recirculation request by the Vocabulary WG of the Infrastructure SD for Characteristics of a Value Set Definition, Release 1
    • Person who submitted the negative is no longer at the organization.
      • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Floyd
        • Discussion over whether the key member can update it.
      • VOTE: All in favor
  5. PSS for continuing projects…What do you do when you’re moving from an informative document towards a new implementation guide, or investigative project to an STU
    • Do you need a new PSS when you change ballot type, or do you amend the original? No clear guidance. Lorraine: An informative to IG, you can update your PSS. When going from investigative, Dave said you need a new PSS. Investigative is short term and stops. Ken disagrees. Lorraine: An investigative project must complete within two cycles and then either make a new project scope statement or end. MK notes that we don’t have a way to see iterations of a PSS. Floyd: We try to put a little history in our old PSS. Confluence will solve/help this problem. Ken states we need to go to project services to ask about the investigative issue.
      • ACTION: Ken to follow up with Dave on the investigative project questions
  6. Formalizing Product Management Council
    • Wayne reports we had a meeting this morning. Agreed on Product Management Council name.
      • MOTION to name the group Product Management Council: Paul/Ken
        • Will meet twice a cycle and at the WGM
      • VOTE: All in favor
  7. Josh will start keeping an FAQ list for Confluence
  8. There have been a bunch of product pages created on the website; DJ is going to run them past Wayne first before creating them. Should probably go to publishing as well. James Agnew has agreed to be a Publishing WG cochair. There is also a new PIC cochair: Ken Rubin.
  9. (September) Review TSC SWOT
    • ACTION: Carry forward


Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
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.