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.

Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/j/946185906
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
+39 020 066 7245 Italy
Meeting ID: 946 185 906

Alternate FCC Meeting Coordinates (in the event of Zoom failure):
Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/anne498
Dial-in number (US): (712) 451-0423

Access code: 935633#
International dial-in numbers: https://fccdl.in/i/anne498
Online meeting ID: annd498

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes 

Location: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3890248668

Date: 2020-05-16
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 Kreisler
Tony JulianxJean Duteau

xWayne KubickxLorraine ConstablexGiorgio Cangioli

ClinicalInfrastructureAdministrativeOrganizational Support
xMelva PetersxPaul KnappxMary Kay McDanielxSandra Suart
xDavid PykexRob McClurexRiki MerrickxVirginia Lorenzi
ex officioInvited GuestsObserversHL7 Staff
xWalter Suarez (HL7 Chair) w/vote



xAnne Wizauer

Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote













Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval  
    3. Housekeeping
      1. Ground rules
      2. Watching TSC Confluence space 
      3. Replacement call for in-person July retreat
  2. Discussion topics:
    1. Succession planning
      1. TSC chair election process/eligibility
        1. 2020-02-01 TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes. minutes section Q2, 1. - GOC; discussion regarding overlap/continuity for the TSC rep to the GC that then extended to all groups
        2. 2020-04-13 TSC Agenda/Minutes, minutes section 3.b.
      2. Co-Chair availability
      3. Bringing new people into leadership roles
    2. Implementer role on TSC/TSC and other ad hoc positions
      1. FHIR Implementer Role Description - Draft from 10/2019 
    3. Two new groups reporting to TSC
      1. US Realm 
        1. TSC to request US Realm to develop criteria for what projects are considered US Realm
      2. HTA
    4. Role of steering divisions
      1. Steering division participation in:
        1. UTG
        2. Project proposals
        3. PSSs
  3. Review Monday's 90-minute call agenda
  4. Parking Lot
    1. Realm designation considerations under new PSS process 
    2. Task force reports
    3. Role of steering divisions

Minutes

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval  
      1. Reviewed. Wayne suggests adding our usual temperature check.
    3. Housekeeping
      1. Ground rules
        1. Austin asks people to use the hand raising feature when they'd like to speak
        2. Will break up into sections rather than a straight four hours. 15 minute break at 12:30.
      2. Watching TSC Confluence space 
        1. Austin confirms that people should be using watch function in Confluence to watch the TSC space. TSC members note that there are too many emails that come flooding in when they watch the space. Rob that the person creating the space can choose to notify watchers or not. 
      3. Replacement call for in-person July retreat
        1. Discussion over how to handle. Lorraine: Are we trying to overlap with the board at all? Walter states that the board is meeting next Tuesday to discuss the organization of the retreat. The three meetings would be the advisory council, the board, and the TSC. 
        2. Melva: It depends what the topics are, whether we need a meeting with the board or not.
        3. Wayne proposes having a meeting before the advisory council and board retreats to determine what we want TSC input to be to the board, and then a meeting afterwards to digest the results and feedback. Could do a 90 minute call for the first one and another meeting afterwards.
        4. Walter: Major topics will be re-envisioning HL7 and 2020-2021 strategic plan. Both could use TSC input. 
        5. Sandy: The original thought was to find out what the TSC can do to support the board and the vision. 
        6. Giorgio: Please take the time zones into account.
        7. Virginia: We should take on the re-envisioning HL7 topic as well.
      4. Temperature check
        1. Each member checks in
        2. Consensus that we need to reach out to the cochairs more, especially as we roll out more processes. Should not assume that even people who have been around a long time understand the processes. Have to figure out how cochairs can mentor newcomers.
        3. Concerns about when things will go back to normal with WGMs
        4. People are appreciating the cochair calls that Wayne and Austin are doing.
        5. Positive feedback has been heard re: the virtual connectathon
        6. People report being busier than ever; what HL7 does is very important in these times
        7. Group agrees that the September in-person WGM is unlikely at this point. Discussions going on about how to do it virtually. Giorgio suggests regional WGMs.
  2. Discussion topics:
    1. Succession planning
      1. TSC chair election process/eligibility
        1. 2020-02-01 TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes. minutes section Q2, 1. - GOC; discussion regarding overlap/continuity for the TSC rep to the GC that then extended to all groups
        2. 2020-04-13 TSC Agenda/Minutes, minutes section 3.b.
          1. Austin: Today it is purely TSC as a WG function. TSC chair is elected by the members of the committee. The criteria for selection are that you had to be a member of the TSC in the past or be a current member. There have been discussions in the past about opening it up to a broader pool. Could go to an elected chair and cochair model. 
          2. Lorraine: We might want to consider looking at the required experience and the fact that someone needs employer support in order to do this.
          3. Paul: We might want to consider having a cochair position to spread the load a little bit. Austin notes that the current structure is that Wayne is the vice chair and provides backup support for the chair. One clear thing we could do is have an elected vice chair position.
          4. Jean: One problem of finding a TSC chair is not everyone is interested in giving up as much time as it take to be an SD cochair. It takes a special kind of person to want to give up that amount of time to be an SD cochair or TSC chair.
          5. Wayne: Should probably have term limits with a vice chair in training. 
          6. MK: The best way to train someone as a successor is to have them there. Part of how we win people into these positions is promoting the value of serving in the role. We don't sell what the positions are and their value.
          7. Lorraine: We might need to think about how to support or re-factor the role and spread responsibility around so more people have the capacity to take it on.
          8. David: The biggest thing for a lot of people is they don't know what the TSC does. People don't understand how it supports the industry as a whole.
          9. Wayne: We might want to consider having a position that is a rotation to expose people to what the TSC is doing, perhaps from the pool of WG cochairs. Need to show the work as desirable.
          10. Melva: Need to find a way to encourage people to run no matter who else is running.
          11. Rob: We need to have a vice chair separate from Wayne's role. Important to expose the broader community to the importance of the work. Having cochairs participate in the TSC on a rotating basis is a good idea. Need to start drawing people through the whole process from cochair on.
          12. Walter: Would like to see combining some of the recommendations with having a chair-elect with one year of training before taking on the role.
          13. Lorraine: Based on our current criteria, we don't have enough people in the candidate pool to make some of these ideas happen. There is tension between continuity/longevity and getting fresh blood in.
          14. Paul: The reason you have a chair-elect and past chair position on a board is because your chair position is time limited. Doesn't currently align with our structure. Need to better communicate the value of the role to our internal community and the external community employing potential candidates. Likes the idea of having cochairs rotate through to raise understanding of what we do.
          15. MK: Likes the WG cochair cycling. Should promote that to the industry and the organizations supporting HL7. We could send a letter to organizations with people doing outstanding work for HL7 and thank that organization for the support. Need to recognize and acknowledge the time and effort they are spending. Need to do a series on what the HL7 volunteers do for the industry.
          16. Virginia: One problem is the TSC Saturday meeting conflicting with the connectathon
          17. Austin: How do we want to advance this? Wayne suggests the first thing is creating the ad hoc rotating WG cochair position. Need to think about the vice chair position a little more.
          18. David: The rotation is a good idea but still need to sell the value.
          19. Melva: If we need GOM changes, we need to think about it now even though we can't do it for this election.
          20. Walter: We need to write up a summary and present some ideas. Maybe a small group could work on it.
          21. Rob: For the cochair rotation, it should be one cochair from each WG.
          22. Virginia: Fresh faces make people pay attention. Invisible administrative work is something that people take for granted.
          23. Wayne: We also should consider applying these principles across all our committees. Need to make people want to contribute at a higher level.
            • Anne Wizauerto create Confluence page to gather feedback on succession planning
    2. Implementer role on TSC/TSC and other ad hoc positions
      1. FHIR Implementer Role Description - Draft from 10/2019 
        1. Austin drafted some language to send out to seek candidates for the ad hoc role. 
        2. Discussion over breadth of implementation experience. The word is used very broadly in the industry.
        3. Edited bullets
        4. Need to make sure we're not excluding new participants by making criteria too narrow
          1. MOTION to approve invitation verbiage: Wayne/Sandy
          2. VOTE: All in favor (9-0-0)
          3. Will work on getting this out to the cochair list, membership list, International Council, Zulip, and post on the website or newsletter
          4. Timeframe: Will have a 30 day nomination period
    3. Two new groups reporting to TSC
      1. HTA
        1. Wayne: HTA has requested a position on the TSC. We need to understand the reporting relationship. Rob has accepted a position as liaison between the US Realm and HTA. 
        2. Wayne also notes that we need to alert the groups that they now report to the TSC
        3. Rob asks what this change means in practice. Austin reports that their previous role with external vocabularies was overseen by the board instead of the TSC. 
        4. Rob notes that the US Realm is going to provide some support to HTA and he will serve as the liaison between the groups. 
        5. Wayne: There was a perception when the board appointed committees, they reported back to the board. That did not happen in all cases. US Realm and HTA had zero agenda attention on these groups or reporting back to the board. 
        6. Jean: Does this mean we should add spots on the TSC for these two groups? Austin: The ARB does have ex officio positions on TSC, but SGB and product management groups do not. The question is how these new groups should interact with TSC.
        7. Jean: We need to clarify for the membership at large what these groups do.
        8. Lorraine: We need to be prepared to tell them what reporting to TSC will mean for them. We likely don't need representation from each group - if we get too big we get ineffective.
        9. Paul: Glad to see these groups under TSC. The question is whether or not they stand apart or within the steering division structure. Would suggest US Realm stand apart, but HTA appears to be a working group with a particular focus - could go into organizational or infrastructural SD as an adjunct to Vocab. SGB should have representation on TSC, same as ARB.
        10. Melva: Now is the time to think about what the TSC should look like as opposed to just adding groups in.
        11. MK: Doesn't see HTA as a work group - more of a facilitator and watch dog. They need the ability to do what they do and put the processes in place for dealing with external organizations.
        12. Austin suggests we may need a new task force to examine TSC structure.
        13. Wayne: There is no intention of HTA becoming a WG. 
        14. Lorraine: We need to keep this conversation in mind as we talk about the role of steering divisions.
        15. Rob: The idea of governance groups being given the freedom to determine governance rules is something the HTA has struggled with. TSC can provide support in that area. The steering divisions don't fit this paradigm. As we think about restructuring, HTA fits into a paradigm where TSC has direct reports and interactive components. Really questioning what the steering divisions now do. With US Realm, what is its role at HL7? Need to clarify that. 
        16. Melva volunteers to work on the restructuring the TSC task force. Also Austin, Rob, Jean, Paul, MK, Sandy
      2. US Realm
        1. Austin: With US Realm, we've been struggling with US Realm vs. universal designations. What makes a project universal? The US Realm steering committee should develop the criteria to use as a checklist, and if it doesn't meet that criteria then it's universal.
        2. Jean: Ron Parker is working on the realm transferrable standard project. We say "oh this standard doesn't have international participation." That isn't really a meaningful requirement. Ron's document does a good job explaining what good requirements are. He is coming to MnM to discuss. Military History project is US Realm only in its terminology while everything else is international, but couldn't get anyone else to come forward with their terminologies. All of our standards should be international in nature and we point out the parts that are realm specific.
        3. Giorgio: It's critical to be sure that the business requirements are universal. It is hard for a single realm to determine if a business requirement is universal or not. 
        4. Paul: I agree with the work Ron is doing as well. Not being US Realm specific is not enough to determine that something is then universal.
        5. Lorraine: We approved universal candidate for things in the middle (universal candidate). US Realm should explicitly express the requirements for US Realm and that can feed into the work ARB is doing.
        6. Rob: Most of what we do is in the middle ground. The US realm should do some criteria but it doesn't mean that anything else is default universal. A main criteria for universal still should be more than one realm participating in the development.
        7. David: Saying that there should be international participation is important. Need to justify why the field is wide.
        8. Austin: So there is agreement that we should ask US Realm to come up with the criteria of what constitutes a US realm project and standard. We still need to discuss universal candidate vs. universal, and how the realm transferrable standards fit into that. Even a US Realm project could fit in to realm transferrable in certain situations.
          1. MOTION to ask the US Realm Steering Committee to provide criteria for what projects require US Realm Steering Committee review: MK/Wayne
          2. VOTE: All in favor (9-0-0)
    4. Role of steering divisions
      1. Steering division participation in:
        1. Project Proposals
          1. These are all new automated processes. How should steering divisions participate in these three workflow related processes?
          2. Melva: Perhaps one of the roles of the SDs would be a review of PBS metrics in the PSS process.
          3. Is there a role for SDs in the project proposal process? Rob: Not sure the metrics are a reason for SDs to exist. Perhaps it should be automated at the PSS level, that if their metrics are red then they can't complete the form. Lorraine: Wouldn't want to put the check at the proposal level. Melva agrees. We don't even know if a PSS will come forward out of a project proposal. Also not sure it could be automated effectively.
          4. MK: When you look across SDs, we have a very large one, 2 smaller ones, and one in the middle. The smaller ones have a different challenge than the larger ones. The roles don't seem to be equal across divisions.
          5. Rob: Maybe there is a different structure that may not necessarily be SD specific that might serve the role better.
          6. Virginia: SDs originally had a purpose, which is to break up decision making into smaller groups. One thing that helps is to have a reason to get together that's meaningful, like training that needs to be done. Should be an intentional place to build a community of leaders. Perhaps they should be broken up in a different way than they are now.
          7. Paul: SDs aren't there to process paperwork. The primary purpose was to be able to connect committees facing similar issues and bring forth issues to the TSC. Wonders what MK meant by the differences between the SDs? MK states that Melva talks about the things she addresses with her WGs, and MK isn't sure other WGs have the same types of issues within other SDs. Melva and David seem to have a higher level of management that must be done with their groups. Sandy states it's not size, it's content.
          8. Lorraine: We lost the original role of the SDs to be a conduit between TSC and WGs. A lot of what we do has gone down to the administrative. As we get rid of that, we either bring back the original purpose or try something different. We've got governance groups off to the side. Maybe one of the needs is coaching WGs and new cochairs.
          9. Melva: I don't think the SDs do what they were intended to do originally. We need to figure out what it is that SDs should do and how to do it differently to engage the groups. 
          10. Sandy: This would be good to revisit after the retreat where we figure out where we're going to go with remote meetings. Austin notes we will have to revisit it in the restructuring task force.
          11. Melva: Some of this will come up sooner than later as we move to the automated PSS workflow. There won't be an approval step for SDs anymore, just a review step. So what will they do in the review step other than check metrics.
        2. PSS Review:
          1. Austin: If there isn't a role for the SD in the review process, they probably shouldn't get an automatic subtask in the PSS workflow. 
          2. Rob: I don't see value for the SD in this particular role. 
          3. Wayne: One role is to break down a large group into smaller chunks, and there is an imbalance. Also the GOM states one role is to elect people to the TSC. But none of that is important to the PSS process.
          4. Melva: The SD also votes on name changes and mission and charter updates. We would need to figure out where those functions go.
          5. Lorraine: So in terms of the consensus review, there doesn't seem to be a role for SDs. 
          6. Melva: So PBS metrics review would happen in the triage step after the PSS is created.
        3. UTG:
          1. Austin: So in UTG, should SDs have some kind of vote? 
          2. Lorraine: UTG is looking at modeling off harmonization, and SDs didn't have a direct role in harmonization. One key question is the current voting system has recognized representative voices of "HL7 elders." What constituency they represent and how they're nominated is unclear - that could be an SD role.
          3. Paul: If WGs have a problem with the UTG process, that would be a role for the SDs but doesn't see SDs having a direct role in UTG.
          4. Austin notes there are social aspects of an SD that aren't automatable that should be considered by the task force.
  3. Review Monday's 90-minute call agenda
    1. Edited to add topics
  4. Adjourned at 3:03 pm Eastern