Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Alternate FCC Meeting Coordinates (in the event of GoToMeeting failure):
Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/tscadmins
Dial-in number (US): (605) 313-4118

Access code: 178928#
International dial-in numbers: https://fccdl.in/i/tscadmins
Online meeting ID: tscadmins

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes 

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2019-07-29
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin KreislerNote taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD representedyes/no
Chair/CTOArBInternational Affiliate RepAd-Hoc
xAustin KreislerxTony Julian.Jean DuteauxJohn Roberts, GOM Expert
xWayne KubickxLorraine Constable.Giorgio Cangioli

ClinicalInfrastructureAdministrativeOrganizational Support
xMelva PetersxRob McClurexMary Kay McDanielxSandra Suart
.Floyd EisenbergxPaul KnappxRiki MerrickxVirginia Lorenzi
ex officioInvited GuestsObserversHL7 Staff
.Calvin Beebe (HL7 Chair) w/vote.
.obs1xAnne Wizauer
.Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote...obs2x

Lynn Laakso

.
.
...

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval -
    3. Approve Minutes of 2019-07-22 TSC Agenda/Minutes
  2. Review action items –
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    1. Project Approval Request by the InM WG of the Infrastructure SD for V2 Quality Criteria at Project Insight 1542
      1. Melva Peters's comment on refer to telecon: No content in 3d; 3k - there is a ? in yes and x in N/A; 5 - has a x in create new standard and x in supplement to a current standard checked; 5a - ballot type has a ? checked. These should be fixed

      2. Ulrike Merrick's comment on affirmative: I agree that the ? need to be fixed - I recall the answers are: 3d - there are no external drivers 3k = N/A 5 I think we didn;t knwo which one would be applicable - I assume it is a new standard, but that is for discussion 5a ballot type is normative, no STU

  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote:
    1. Proposed updates to the GOM
    2. STU Extension Request by the Public Health WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Public Health Case Report, Release 2: the Electronic Initial Case Report (eICR), Release 1, STU Release 1.1 - US Realm at Project Insight 1216 for one year
    3. Missed reconciliation deadline appeal by the CDS WG of the Clinical SD for Documentation Templates and Rules
  5. Approval items for this week:
    1. Project Approval Request  by the Security WG of the Infrastructure SD for FHIR Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) Implementation Guide at Project Insight 1549
    2. Project Approval Request by the Public Health WG of the Clinical SD for Birth Defects DAM and FHIR IG at Project Insight 1532
  6. Discussion topics:
    1. NIB approvals
    2. Report from Board retreat 
    3. New proposed PSS process
    4. Proposed US Realm policies on use of US Core profiles in C-CDA - feedback to US Realm?
    5. US Core and Profile Development
      1. Melva Peters's comment on refer to telecon: There seem to be missing steps in this process - engagement with HL7 WGs that may own content. Jumps from "declare candidacy" to "get published". There are examples of material in US Core that was never reviewed in domain WGs before it went to ballot. I don't believe that should be the process going forward.
        Lorraine Constable's comment on refer to telecon: From Lorraine Constable: Also need to describe responsibilities of US Core and Domain groups post ballot - during ballot reconciliation and tracker maintenance

    6. Versioning Precept (draft) from the SGB
      1. Referred by Infrastructure SD and Administrative SD
      2. Infrastructure SD: See document for inline comments
      3. Administrative SD: In addition to Rob's comments: 1. I am not quite sure how the product ID will be handled (is that an internal HL7 publishing thing, o does it need to be part of the published document)? 2. I like the change log requirement from a user perspective, BUT it is so hard to properly document ALL changes - so maybe provide guidelines as to what kind of changes MUST be tracked vs what kind of changes can be left off (or summarized - for example typo fixes or re-ordering of paragraphs (assuming the meaning does not change when doing that) or formatting, application of new copyright rules / logos etc.
  7. Parking Lot
    1. Question regarding approval of ballot content on main WG call vs. project call 
    2. FAQ_Release Clarifications - questions from Mary Kay
    3. Cochair Handbook Task Force
      1. Sandy reports that they are forming and will have a report in September.
    4. Project management artifact list from Project Services
    5. Definition of Errata and Technical Correction 
      1. Tony will investigate status.
    6. e-Vote comments on Technical Deviation Policy
    7. Realm Transferable Specs Project for Saturday WGM Agenda 
      1. Universal Candidate Designation
    8. Look into ways to integrate new projects into HL7 including resource requirements - MK
    9. Archetype publication for CIMI
    10. Task force for review of board committees

Minutes

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
      1. No visitors
    2. Agenda review and approval -
      1. No additions
    3. Approve Minutes of 2019-07-22 TSC Agenda/Minutes
      1. Approved via general consent
  2. Review action items –
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    1. Project Approval Request by the InM WG of the Infrastructure SD for V2 Quality Criteria at Project Insight 1542
      1. Melva Peters's comment on refer to telecon: No content in 3d; 3k - there is a ? in yes and x in N/A; 5 - has a x in create new standard and x in supplement to a current standard checked; 5a - ballot type has a ? checked. These should be fixed

      2. Ulrike Merrick's comment on affirmative: I agree that the ? need to be fixed - I recall the answers are: 3d - there are no external drivers 3k = N/A 5 I think we didn;t knwo which one would be applicable - I assume it is a new standard, but that is for discussion 5a ballot type is normative, no STU

        1. Discussion over whether or not this is a balloting item. 
        2. WG to review comments and bring back.
  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote:
    1. Proposed updates to the GOM
      1. John Roberts noted a typo; Anne to forward to Karen.
  5. Discussion topics:
    1. Report from Board retreat 
      1. Austin reports that the board will bet setting up some small teams to take a look at individual items such as the membership strategy. Austin and Melva have signed up for a team on streamlining internal processes. There will also be groups looking at simplifying products and services, affiliate strategy, and implementer strategies. There was a proposal for the FHIR Foundation to merge with HL7. Austin will ensure that the TSC feedback isn't lost; will add to confluence pages on each topic. 
    2. NIB approvals
      1. Reviewed clean NIBs in blue on the spreadsheet.
        1. MOTION to approve NIBs in blue: Lorraine/Riki
        2. VOTE: All in favor
      2. Reviewed yellows
        1. 1396: Requesting name change to HL7 Version 2 Conformance Methodology, Release 1. Discussion over whether or not it should say 2.x. Management group should put together a policy on consistent naming. 
          • ACTION: Anne Wizauer to add development of a precept around product family naming to SGB agenda
            • MOTION to accept the alternate ballot title as proposed by the Conformance WG: Lorraine/Riki
            • VOTE: All in favor
        2. 1002: 
          1. MOTION to approve alternate title: Riki/Paul
          2. VOTE: All in favor
          3. MOTION to reopen the issue
          4. VOTE: All in favor
          5. MOTION to add US Realm to the end of the title: Rob/John
          6. VOTE: All in favor
        3. 1511, CDA:
          1. MOTION to reject the alternate title request in order to conform to our naming convention: Lorraine/Rob
          2. VOTE: Riki abstains. Remaining in favor.
        4. 1511, FHIR: 
          1. MOTION to reject the alternate title request: Rob/Melva
          2. VOTE: All in favor
        5. 914:
          1. MOTION to reject the alternate ballot title and accept the updated recommendation of "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Privacy and Security Architecture Framework (PSAF), Release 1: Lorraine/Riki
          2. VOTE: All in favor
        6. 1492:
          1. MOTION to accept the alternate ballot title: Wayne/Riki
          2. VOTE: All in favor
        7. 1420:
          1. MOTION to accept the alternate ballot title: Rob/Lorraine
          2. VOTE: All in favor
        8. 1436:
          1. MOTION to accept the alternate ballot title with the addition of Release 2 STU Release 1: Lorraine/Rob
          2. VOTE: All in favor
      3. MOTION to accept the entire package for ballot: Melva/Paul
      4. VOTE: All in favor
    3. Carry forward
      1. New proposed PSS process
      2. Proposed US Realm policies on use of US Core profiles in C-CDA - feedback to US Realm?
      3. US Core and Profile Development
        1. Melva Peters's comment on refer to telecon: There seem to be missing steps in this process - engagement with HL7 WGs that may own content. Jumps from "declare candidacy" to "get published". There are examples of material in US Core that was never reviewed in domain WGs before it went to ballot. I don't believe that should be the process going forward.
          Lorraine Constable's comment on refer to telecon: From Lorraine Constable: Also need to describe responsibilities of US Core and Domain groups post ballot - during ballot reconciliation and tracker maintenance

      4. Versioning Precept (draft) from the SGB
        1. Referred by Infrastructure SD and Administrative SD
        2. Infrastructure SD: See document for inline comments
        3. Administrative SD: In addition to Rob's comments: 1. I am not quite sure how the product ID will be handled (is that an internal HL7 publishing thing, o does it need to be part of the published document)? 2. I like the change log requirement from a user perspective, BUT it is so hard to properly document ALL changes - so maybe provide guidelines as to what kind of changes MUST be tracked vs what kind of changes can be left off (or summarized - for example typo fixes or re-ordering of paragraphs (assuming the meaning does not change when doing that) or formatting, application of new copyright rules / logos etc.
  6. Adjourned at 12:00 pm Eastern