We will not be electing co-chairs today because I do not think we are quite ready.
It is my hope that we can decide how we are going to elect co-chairs and then do so possibly at the next meeting.
Further, it is a requirement [precept] that co-chairs of a management group cannot be co-chairs of the associated methodology group i.e. for TSMG the methodology group is Vocabulary WG.
RD and I have spoken about this.
I do think that TSMG needs to have co-chairs who are people other than Vocabulary WG co-chairs.
As all TSMG members bring unique capabilities to the group and because TSMG will be tackling lots of different things it is my hope that everyone will be actively involved – as involved as a co-chair of any work group would be.
In work groups what prevents non co-chairs from contributing as much is that co-chairs typically have access rights to inner workings of HL7 and additional resources e.g. ability to create projects.
This should not be an issue for members of TSMG.
If that is an issue, members should like RM or RD because TSMG should have all these access rights e.g. being on the co-chairs listserv and receiving all the announcements that go to co-chairs.
That should doing things TSMG easier if you are not a co-chair.
That said, I do think one of the TSMG co-chairs should be a Vocabulary WG co-chair.
We also need to talk about which members will serve 1-year terms and which will serve 2-year terms as half need to be off cycled after a year.
RD and I have been toying with the idea of potentially having three co-chairs.
The following is proposed as a though experiment:
An international member (either PJ or RD). If this is to be RD he who would retain his Vocabulary WG co-chair position (providing international representation as a Vocabulary WG co-chair and a TSMG co-chair)
One other current Vocabulary WG co-chair who would step down as a Vocabulary WG co-chair.
One other TSMG member who is not a Vocabulary WG co-chair.
Some continuity would be retained from those who campaigned to form TSMG
If two of the TSMG co-chairs are from Vocabulary WG, then we would need a third who is not.
If two of the TSMG co-chairs are existing co-chairs, we would need to talk to the TSC about allowing one to remain so that Vocabulary WG does not lose two co-chairs.
This would be an arrangement for one year.
I support that position.
It cannot be me as I do not have the time to devote to being a co-chair.
I think that the position provided by RM is really good.
I personally don't think it's it will be a bad thing for one person to drop being a Vocabulary WG co-chair as the work group has six co-chairs. Further, with TSMG being formed, there may be less for Vocabulary WG to do.
RM agrees. If two Vocabulary WG co-chairs are elected, then having one give up their Vocabulary WG co-chair position would not be a big hit.
I want to reiterate that PJ is right: TSMG should be taking on some of the tasks that Vocabulary WG has been doing so that should make it easier to lose a co-chair.
I like the idea of having one of the co-chairs be from international so that this is not all US centric because we find that a lot of things are US centric.
We have to fill the "rep to the TSC" role which is a time demanding role to have to have, and I believe that you're not allowed to fill that role with a co-chair.
We might want to have that third person — rather than seeing them as a third co chair — have that person play this this significant role and and be the rep to the TSC and support the two co chairs.
Otherwise you're going to end up with four people in demand in management positions.
That's a good point. There is not a requirement that the TSC rep not be a co-chair of the management group.
I also have concerns about us losing momentum. I am willing to stand as a co-chair.
So, to make my position clear I am willing to stand as a co-chair.
I'll let RD speak for himself, but he has indicated he would be willing to participate in the position I laid out before with 3 co-chairs.
The alternative is that one of us would not be a co-chair.
I think one of us (RM and RD) should be a co-chair since we have the most institutional knowledge and putting this thing together so long as the other is around and participates while not being a co-chair.
I am happy to serve in any position the TSMG members are happy or would would like me to serve in.
I am prepared and willing to serve as a co-chair, the rep to the TSC, or simply a member.
If elected a co-chair of the TSMG, I would seek to retain my position a Vocabulary WG co-chair as the work group is already loosing Ted Klein at the end of 2021.
I wanted to make sure to clarify my position, I had originally thought that we would be electing co-chairs in the first TSMG meeting (at the WGM) and thus put myself for a co-chair position.
And when I listened to the comments and the suggestion that we take a pause and think about all this, I really took to heart the the necessity for there being some international representation, which is the reason that that I withdrew my interest or my self nomination.
If there's a scenario where we do suffice that, then I would be willing to serve in the the role of co-chair.
CMG meets weekly and finding three people to join preplanning may be challenging.
There could be rule saying you can do preplanning with two - you may not need three.
The most important thing for co-chairs is getting the agenda locked and loaded.
We spend a lot of time ahead of time figuring out what work do we need to do e.g. watching over all the processes that we have to govern over and making that time for the rest of the group as effective as possible
Linda and I probably spend more time in our pre planning meetings than we plan in the group, then we spend in the group meetings, just to keep all the work organized.
That is helpful.
It may make sense to have three co-chairs as getting two together on a regular basis for pre-planning may be difficult.
Additionally, three would be good because there are three big sets of management activities which I think will each need a strong co-chair focus.
At CMG we identify our goals, our roadmap and we make our work plan and go around the table and treat everyone as a leader and say "which of these will you be in charge of?"
We do try and share the work regardless of who is a co-chair and who isn't.
Co-chairs always end up doing more.
The discussion about co-chairs sounded reasonable.
How many people do we have who really are in a position of even being able to take on the workload and want to step forward to be considered?
Because sometimes you only have the right number of people that even want to, and then the voting is easy.
I do have some capacity in the long term to support the group.
(Question to DG): Are you are officially throwing your hat back and ring now that now that we've kind of come up with an alternative strategy?
Yes, provided we can meet that requirement and it sounds like it's going in that direction.
JB: Confirmed that GOM states:
10.03 Product and Service Management Group Representative Concurrent with the election of TSC Representatives, each Product and Service Management Group will select one of their members, excluding either chair, to be a representative from the Management Group to the TSC. The selected member shall be seated January 1 of the following year and will serve a two-year term.
(Question to WK): Could TSC be swayed to allow RD to be co-chair of Vocabulary WG and co-chair of TSMG?
At least for the first year, that would be fine. I can't see anyone really pushing back against that. Longer term we may need to change that. It's a no-brainer given how much work RD has put in in forming the group.
Now that it is established that the GOM states one cannot be a co-chair of a management group and be that management group's rep on the TSC I am on the fence as to whether it be better than I give up my current TSC and Vocabulary WG co-chair positions and stand to be a TSMG co-chair OR no be a TSMC co-chair and retain the other two roles.
I wouldn't over obsess about this.
We can work all these matters out later.
Further, none of these exceptions are arrangements that would need to continue for longer than a year.
Has the fate of the HTA been discussed yet?
We have not gotten to that yet.
I cannot commit to standing to be a TSMG co-chair without knowing the fate of the HTA.
We have forgotten about that. That is important.
HTA membership was split on whether HTA should become part of the TSMG.
We can't vote on co-chairs now given all the interdependencies.
We just need to figure out the slate of candidates.
(To CM): If you're interested, then your hand is up to be a co-chair.
We (TSMG) cannot decide anything about the HTA - we can only give our opinion.
It sounds like we have 4 people interested in filling TSMG leadership roles RM, DG, RD and CM.
HTA is lukewarm and split on their future.
Hands to CM
If the HTA's recommendation to the TSC is to merge with the TSMG, then there has to be representation from HTA in the TSMG because it can constitutes quite a a bit of work and the relationship management with external terminology owners.
Then that changes the conversation.
OR HTA stays separate and therefore still needs chairs, because the god requires HTA to have them.
OR HTA just goes away and no changes to the TSMG membership needs to occur.
That makes sense.
HTA need to voice their firm and full opinion.
We would like everything to happen by consensus.
Ultimately, it is not HTA's decision.
It is TSC and the board's decision.
HTA have been asked.
It has been requested that HTA consider the issue.
Ultimately we want what's best for the organisation and people's time.
People should take a while to figure that out.
A decision must be made one way or the other - hopefully everyone is agreed.
There are three members of the HTA who are not on the TSMG.
We were kind of resource poor.
Right. there's so many things here.
You have active members within that group who represent international interests that can contribute significantly to the improvement of terminology services management and HL7.
Now, if you completely ban the HTA... I don't know.
If you absorb it, then you get those numbers and you get more working TSMG members.
I think that's actually not clear, in that, if we absorbed the HTA I don't believe that the HTA members actually become members of TSMG.
Right. RD and I will do our best to get them the HTA to proffer a a recommendation to TSC and the board as to what would happen with those members.
Action for RD: In the private TSMG-members Zulip stream, create a channel for TSMG members to put a statement in on whether they wish to to serve as (a) A TSMG co-chair (b) The TSMG rep to the TSC or (c) Not interested in a leadership position in the TSMG.
(To CM) Please put in a statement with caveats.
HTA should have a firm decision for the next meeting.
It is not crazy to say HTA should be absorbed if the current membership is absorbed into the TSMG and the current chair is given a TSMG leadership role.
This is new and important: there is no urgency.
RD and RM are interim/acting co-chairs and we could take our time to make decisions.
Nothing needs to happen that quickly.
This is time well spent and we need to bring this to closure.
I am not concerned about when co-chairs are selected, but we have lots of things to deal with e.g. HTA and ongoing responsibilities.
It will not help us to have interim co-chairs.
(To WK) I hear you, but we need to clarify what we need to do.
Let's give the HTA a little time to think things through.
People need time to consider the options before they are pushed.
Action for All: TSMG members must indicate on the Zulip channel which leadership roles (TSMG co-chair or TSMG rep to the TSC).
Volunteers for 1 year terms (need 5)
We do not need to decide this now.
Action for All: TSMG members must indicate on the Zulip channel on whether they would like to stand for 1 or 2 year terms.
PJ and RM indicated interest in 1 year.
LN doesn't mind 1 or 2 years.
I am firmly interested in 2-years given that one international rep should be serving a 2-year term and PJ can only commit to a 1-year term.
Decision Making Practices (DMP)
In the near term we need to vote on decision making practices (DMP).
(To LN) Can you bring the DMPs for CMG to next meeting and we will add to the agenda for next meeting.
Zulip streams setup and operational.
Confluence setup and operational.
HL7 website work group pending.
Dedicated Zoom account pending
Review WGM discussions
Folks to review the Mission and Charter and make comments in the Zulip channel.
Folks to review minutes from WGM meeting.
Need input from Vocab, HTA and other management groups on what they are doing with terminology.
What are each of the product families doing with respect to terminology?
What I what I was planning to do is to incorporate a little bit of a like a show and tell next week i'll show you our decision making practices, but i'll i'll show you just the infrastructure that we've stood up around how we've come to do our work and organize our Confluence page and and at the same time, I could show you some details about what we're doing with vocabulary.
We have an initiative around Community building that is part of our Charter, and in that respect, we run the CDA implementation of funds and we get into vocabulary issues in there.
We are monitoring and supporting the project that is the mapping work between right now ccta and US core profiles. And at the deep level of that when you get done structural mapping you bump into vocabulary.
The other thing is that we have resourced through HL7 we've elevated the need to resource an annual vocabulary update project, which is now a regular part of HL7's overall sustainability plan for CDA and like a large product line like consolidated CDA.
And through that work, we commissioned, this year, a study to look at the spots where there is correspondence between value sets used in C-CDA templates and value sets used in US core profiles in order to provide a general assessment back to HL7 of how problematic are these reuses/lack of, alignment/misalignment, what's the size and shape of the problem that we face when the same exact information is being represented with two different value sets potentially even different concepts because two different product families are are working in silos.
That would be helpful.
We we have felt that there are some areas of vocabulary responsibility that we've dipped our toes in and and that's one of the important reasons why i'm here on this group is to understand where the synergies and the governance powers are in this group to help make stuff happen that we've been dabbling with over, on the other side.
Okay, so that sounds great I mean this is definitely one of the areas where I think we're going to focus.
It's going to take us a while to kind of get our feet firmly planted on what things we should be doing and what things we aren't doing
I do very strongly encourage all the members like literally I expect every one of you to comment in that Zulip thread either privately or in public.
We need to start building that list.
So please think about what is it that you expect this group to actually begin to work on and.
Will bring content on this from CMG for the next meeting.
Members should comment on Zulip thread about thing that need to be managed. We need to begin building this list. Please think about what you expect this group to begin to work on e.g. code system identifier issues, process for identification and acknowledgement of new code systems, UTG improvements, THO.
The minimum is deciding when we publish THO.
We have an obligation to document the things we are responsible for.
I have a list for UTG/THO.
Great - we could set it up as a page/project with things we need to do.
I am gathering instances of what content we might need for a terminology server for a connectathon.
You (RM) noted that there were three areas TSMG needs to be responsible to ("the big buckets") active in so let's create these as three pages which group things together.
At CMG we have a main "important links" dashboard. One of these is CMG Project dashboard which is a high level view of administrative, short, and long term 11 initatives/projects.
Each has a dedicated sub-page in Confluence devoted to it.
Each project has a dedicated member which leads it and an associated co-chair.
A dedicated CMG member is assigned to each project and this is reassessed every year. Usually one member and one co-chair. Some administrative things are owned by two co-chairs.
There is lots of benefit looking at these next week.
ACTION: RM will take a shot at creating pages for the three areas of TSMG.
We should get schooled by CMG before we get too far forward.
Reuben Daniels to create a channel In the private TSMG-members Zulip stream for TSMG members to put a statement in on whether they wish to to serve as (a) A TSMG co-chair (b) The TSMG rep to the TSC or (c) Not interested in a leadership position in the TSMG and (d) whether they would like to serve a 1 or 2-year term.