...
| Name | Attendance |
|---|---|
| Melva Peters (Chair) | x |
| Chuck Meyer | x |
| Jean Duteau | x |
| Hans Buitendijk | x |
| Nancy Orvis | x |
| Peter Jordan | x |
| Robert Stegwee | x |
| Ed Hammond | |
| Karen van Hentenryck | x |
| Virginia Lorenzi | x |
Agenda
- Revision Cycle 2009
- Next Meeting
Meeting Notes
Revision Cycle 2009
- see JIRA for discussion and decisionsRC2009 Issues to be considered for adoption as action items
Key | Summary | Description |
...
...
Letters of Support not provided by HL7
...
EC adopted for RC2005; deferred to RC2009. EC to provide new wording.
...
...
Transferred from Confluence. Originally submitted by Wayne Kubick - 20191209
https://confluence.hl7.org/display/GOC/2001011+Update+Trademarks+Section
Update Trademarks section to reflect the multiple trademarks of HL7
Section 09.02.03 - Use of Other Trademarks
...
| Notes | |||
| GCR-113 | Verify key voting representative annually with renewal | Submitted by Wayne Kubick (GOM Restructuring Project): There is no timing statement in 03.04.02 with respect to the organizational member's key voting representative. Current Wording: "The Key Voting Representative shall maintain a current file of signed statements from each of their organization’s designated voting representatives naming the Key Voting Representative as proxy in matters pertaining to the reconciliation or recirculation of HL7 Normative Ballots." Suggest that the key voting representative should be named annually with the organization renewal. |
|
Submitted from Wayne Kubick: "An individual member wishing to provide additional financial support to HL7 may become an “HL7 Supporter” by doubling their annual dues. Individual member supporters shall receive appropriate recognition for their exceptional financial contribution." - does anyone do this? Is it worth keeping? Can’t we just ask people to make extra contributions in general if appropriate? From GCR-129 The HL7 Executive Committee may establish different membership dues for individuals residing in North America (Canada, USA, Mexico) versus those residing elsewhere. Has this ever been done? Should it be kept? |
| ||
The following sentence "HL7 staff will match students with a Work Group based on the student's interests and the needs expressed by Work Group co-chairs." doesn't seem to fit into this section which is talking about dues. Suggest finding a new place for this. Also, is it appropriate for HL7 staff to do this? Perhaps it is a TSC function |
| ||
Submitted by Wayne Kubick: HL7 shall extend the member rate for Working Group Meetings, including the discount rate for tutorial sessions, to select representatives of ANSI-accredited SDO and those organizations that have executed an HL7 Statement of Understanding (SOU) or Associate Charter as defined in said SOU or Charter. Suggest dropping "ANSI-accredited SDO" - we'd still require an SOU in practice even if they are accredited. |
| ||
Adopted in RC2005. Deferred to address HTA peer review comment |
| ||
Submitted by Wayne Kubick: This section is a subsection of 07.11.01 HL7 Chair. I think the first paragraph is okay to stay in this section, but the subsequent 3 paragraphs (as below) should be moved to their own section as they apply to HL7 members. There are numerous situations where a member of HL7, participating in various other initiatives and venues, may wish to represent an HL7 position rather than attributing their statement to themselves or their employer. In general, any written or oral statement represented as an HL7 position must be reviewed within HL7 prior to its release. Such statements shall not appear to favor one vendor, product, or service over another. Nor shall they denigrate any individual or organization. Policies relative to written and oral communications regarding HL7 follow. "reviewed within HL7 prior to its release" is too vague - needs to be clearer who is responsible for doing this. It is spelled out in Written Communication and Oral Communications sections - suggest the wording be changed to "...must be reviewed prior to its release as per the Written Communications and Oral Communications sections as appropriate." Written Communications Oral Communications Other changes: second paragraph: |
| ||
Submitted by Wayne Kubick: Comment #1: Wording: For contracts exceeding $10,000, the responsible EC member shall serve as chair of an ad hoc selection committee including at least two domain experts and/or appropriate staff to outline the scope of work or service to be contracted; expected qualifications of the contractor or subcontractor; deliverables and work schedule with performance bonus and/or penalties as applicable; and a preliminary budget. The EC shall be informed of the committee members, work description and recommendations before a contract is awarded. It’s a bit unclear to me whether these limits apply to funded contract work – particularly continuation projects. If ONC gives us a grant instructing us to redirect $300K to Boston Children’s Hospital, do I need EC approval or simply a notification to EC? Comment #2: Wording: When an RFP is to be issued, the chair of the selection committee shall provide HL7 Headquarters with the contract work announcement template. The contract work announcement shall be posted to the HL7 Contract Work list service, which is open to any individual interested in being apprised of HL7 contract work. In the event of a question or request for clarification additional information regarding the announcement may be disseminated using the Contract Work list service, but the list service shall not be used for interactive discussions among the subscribers. In practice, we get few responses from this listserv. I think many don’t monitor it (as was the case for the recent PM/BA position). I think it should also be stated that we can solicit additional channels in addition to the listserv. Comment #3: Wording: Upon completion of their deliberations, the selection committee chair shall present the committee proceedings, including its recommendations, to the EC who shall award the contract. This seems to contradict paragraph 4, which says where EC approval isn’t required. So why would EC award the contract in that case? Comment #4: Wording: HL7 Headquarters shall post the notification of award of contract to the Contract Work list service and notify the membership of the award via posting in the next edition of the HL7 Newsletter. The award shall be entered into the HL7 Contract Register and be subject to public inspection. The HL7 Contract Register shall include at least the following elements: contract name, contract description, contract amount, contract period, date contractor selected, contractor name and contact information. Is membership really aware of the newsletter for info like this at this stage? This seems like a throwback to before we had chat and other channels. I don’t recall seeing these in the newsletter. |
| ||
Current wording: The TSC shall be responsible for ensuring that any tools created or promoted for the development of HL7 Protocol Specifications (§02.02) are thoroughly tested and documented, and that such tools have established maintenance and support mechanisms. Upon such assurance, the TSC may endorse those tools for use by the membership. The decision of the TSC shall be final. Comment from ARB: ARB feels that this opens up HL7 to legal responsibility. At least "created or promoted" should say "created by HL7 or promoted by HL7": Comment from Wayne: This is odd, since I don’t recall TSC weighing in on Tooling. That’s also part of the CTO job description, and historically there was a role for EST, though less so now. Also, odd that it doesn’t address fitness of use. But maybe leave well enough alone in this case. Editorial note: Is above comment deserving of a new/separate Issue? |
| ||
"Collectively the various Work Groups established by the Technical Steering Committee to focus on particular aspects of the HL7 protocol specifications shall be known as The Working Group." Comment from Wayne Kubick: This seems like it should be at the top of a section, not here where it’s rather buried. |
| ||
Submitted by Karen Van Hentenryck (1) Those eligible to vote are based on their subscription to the relevant WG listserv 5 days prior to the start of the election. There is no way HQ can send the list of unknown folks to the affiliates and get a response back in 5 days before the elections open (2) Grahame wanted to know if you could change your vote for co-chair once submitted. Our software does not allow that. The issue was that Grahame voted when the announcement first came out, then someone put a note out to the list indicating they were running as a write in. I don't believe we can do much to address this but agreed to submit it as an issue. (3) since we don't clean up our lists for each WG, there are tons of people on the list that are no longer active that are given the opportunity to vote. This doesn't seem right. |
| ||
There should be limits on the number of WG co-chair position an individual can hold | [Lloyd McKenzie] While I agree that members should be able to run for more than one co-chair position, we recently had an individual who ran for 10+ work groups – several of which (perhaps all of which) he’d never participated in. Because there weren’t enough nominations for some of these work groups, it’s likely he’ll get in as co-chair on random chance. This sort of behavior isn’t terribly desirable. It would be good to impose a limit on the number of co-chair positions an individual can run for (and the number of simultaneous co-chair hats a single individual can reasonably hold). I don’t know what the current max in existence is. Personally, I think 3 is a reasonable cap. Editorial note: The GOM currently sets no limit on the number of WG co-chair positions an individual may hold. |
| |
[Karen Van Hentenryck] Following a review of HL ER 2020 by ANSI, it was pointed out that the use of a comment-only ballot for reaffirmation (§03.04.01) appeared to lack the rigor expected for such actions. Editorial note: Per §04.03.03, revisions due to ANSI review or audit shall be considered adopted proposed revisions and processed accordingly. | No discussion | ||
[Chuck Meyer] As the TSC pointed out in their peer review comment on resolving motions via email (RC2005) with the transition to Confluence/JIRA very few groups still use email to resolve issues. I suggest the GOM be revised to address the use of collaborative tools to resolve motions using parliamentary rules of order. | No discussion | ||
Need to update GOM with Code of Conduct that was approved by the Board on 2020-08-24. From GCR-211: Update GOM to include either a reference to the Diversity statement or the full statement Editorial note: Current section 04 includes reference to Diversity Policy. | No discussion | ||
HTA [Julie James] RC2005 peer review comments to GCR-141 stated that in the process of interacting with external terminology management organizations the topic of SOU/MOU often arises. Therefore, the HTA requests that this be taken into consideration and, if possible, mentioned in the context of such relationships. | No discussion | ||
Change Section 08.08.02: "Nominees for HL7 Director must be current individual members or designated voting representatives of current Organizational members and should have held leadership positions at the Work Group, council, and/or committee level or have comparable experience." | No discussion |
- Next Meeting - will schedule a meeting for the first week of November to discuss remained
- There are changes to the TSC coming that will require GOM changes. Will need to discuss process to get changes in to GOM to meet needs of TSC