Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Current »

Date: 2019-01-17

Facilitator:  Anthony Julian 

Note Taker: Anne Wizauer




xConstable Consulting Inc.

xMayo Clinic
xPknapp Consulting
xICode Solutions

Lynch, CecilAccenture

Deontik Pty Ltd

Andy StechishinCANA Software and Service Ltd.


Create Decision from Template

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline
Agenda Item
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
Management Minute Approval


Things that came up this week.

  • PSS Proposal from Ron P.

Reviewed proposal - "Characteristics of Realm Transferable
Standards Specifications." Do we think this is a good idea that should
be turned into a project? It addresses criteria needed to make something transferable across realms. Group agrees this would be a useful project. Will distribute the link to a page in Confluence, have people comment, and then Tony will create the PSS.

Substantive change - Paul Knapp

We have a ballot on normative track that has a balloter concerned that some of the items within the ballot are too fresh to be considered normative - would rather see those items as STU. If we took a few sections of that ballot and changed the status of them to STU, would that be substantive change? Making it non-normative would be changing the status of that section and is a scope change. Could only let the rest go forward if it was completely independent of the section that drops a level. Can we demote those sections to comment or STU and publish it, or would making that change require us to re-ballot it with those sections marked "non-normative?" Need clarification about section 02.06.03 of the Essential Requirements to see how it can be applied. Paul suggests you could publish it identifying the level of the content without ripping it out. Reviewed definition of substantive change. The first path is to do a recirculation ballot to allow the members of the ballot pool to say if the negative balloter was correct. Another path is to re-ballot it at another level. Karen has said that this would be a substantive change and would require re-ballot.

Outcome: Paul will follow up with Karen.

Other business and planningN/A

 Agenda until next WGM.


When do we meet next WGM?Sunday Q2 with SGB; Monday Q2 and Thursday Q3

  • Hugh Glover
  • Chirag Bhatt
  • Jean Duteau
  • Jeff Brown

Lorraine reports there is potential interest from Ron Parker to be a member. Tony proposes that people come on board for a couple of meetings and decide if they want to participate. Lorraine notes that everyone's membership was up at the end of the WGM since we extended the dates. Should let the people go who haven't been attending, although a couple are in a gray area. Decision that Wayne suggest to TSC that we extend the active members for one more cycle and discuss the new member criteria against the nominees on an upcoming call. Active members have been Lorraine, Tony, Zoran, Paul, Andy.

 Next agenda2019-01-29 4:00 pm Eastern

 Adjourned at 3:01 pm Central

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference
Supporting Document
Minute Approval

Open JIRA:

Key Summary T Created Updated Due Assignee Reporter P Status Resolution

Action items

  •  Anthony Julian  to create PSS for Characteristics of Realm Transferable Standards

  • Anthony Julian Schedule Telcons for 3:00pm Eastern
  • Paul Knapp to follow up with Karen on substantive change issue re: demoting material in Normative ballot to STU

  • No labels