Chair:  @Sandy Stuart

Scribe: @Ken Rubin

NOTE: This attendance applies if you are present at the related meeting/call, regardless if you have signed a different attendance for your WG. 


Minutes Approved as Presented 

This is to approve minutes via general consent. "You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none, if there are no objections, the minutes are approved as printed."

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

Decision Link(if not child)
Management Minutes ApprovalApproved.

Management Next agenda

 Adjourned at
  1. Agenda Topics

    1. Agenda Review
    2. How can PIC be more effective
      1. Alignment with new Board
      2. (new) Areas of responsibility/ownership which might attract new contributors
    3. Co-Chair Handbook Revision
      1. Ask Ken McC to host revision/worksessions (Biweekly)
    4. Brainstorm:  Explore how PIC can be more effectively engaged to support CTO and HQ
      1. We are getting to point where workflow-based processes are improving.  Suggest stronger approach to assign participants to more directly engage.  Ask steering divisions for reps; identify steering division liaisons to that process.
      2. Josh will provide triage on "Provide Feedback" button on confluence, sending process items our way.
    5. Sydney Plans
    6. PIC Article for Next Meeting Cycle
      1. Major process changes underway – highlights
        1. Liaisons from Steering Divisions
        2. Highlights of key activities - streamlined project scope statements, etc.
        3. Possible to include in Blog instead.
      2. Co-Chair handbook reboot - to be reviewed in Jan 2020 and announced new one in Sydney
        1. Goal is to get 2 worksessions in before Sydney.
    7. Ioana Singureanu Concern raised on PIC Listserv
      1. Hi Ken and Sandy:

        We submitted the ANF ballot for publication. The TSC conducted an electronic vote. Riki Merick submitted comments suggesting that we need to reword the specification. I welcome a quality assurance step but  don’t understand how the publication request process could have changed so significantly of if it’s a side-effect of the eVote. In the past, I had to present the publication requests to the TSC and I could answer question. This process deprives the TSC of that QnA and it causes endless email discussions.

        • I would make sense if HL7 hired a technical writer to improve the readability of all our specifications, but this type of rewrite on the fly would time consuming and uneven.
        • The previous process where publication requests were discussed on the TSC calls made more sense. Publishing a specification is the final step in an arduous process that deserve the time/attention of the TSC and it should be conducted in a consistent/fair way.

        Just another little process issue for your consideration.

        1. Agree with the core assertion raised.  Content/rewording issues raised at publication are not in order.  These steps should be hit at earlier stages and the TSC validating that the steps took place.
        2. Produce a small guide indicating the steps in the process and what gets reviewed where.  Perhaps a flow diagram with annotations, or similar.  
        3. Produce a Checklist
    8. Adjournment 


Supporting Documents

Outline Reference

Supporting Document

Minute Approval



  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date
  • Karen Van will extract GOM language around use of proxy statements for designated org voting reps and create a template.
  • Wayne Kubick will invite PIC to working sessions around HL7 process and governance artifacts (e.g. standards governance)  (JIRA/CON; Co-Chair Handbook; Accelerators guidance pages; etc)
  • Kenneth Rubin Create co-chair handbook survey to find out who uses it, what they think, etc.  Establish baseline around current Co-Chair Handbook.
  • Will work with targeted HL7 report-out audiences to leverage the Standards Briefing Template.  Ken will re-surface to Wayne. 
    • Plan is to pilot this in Sydney
  • Wayne Kubick will engage Ken McCaslin to establish biweekly worksessions on CoChair Handbook
  • Sandra Stuart will create the Sydney agenda – principal focus on how to more effectively engage; role in bigger tooling/process redesign; co-chair handbook.  Note that much emerging HL7 work is not on a normative track.  Role of PIC in establishing processes in this dimension will be part of the discussion.