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://zoom.us/j/946185906

Date: 2020-05-18
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

David PykexRob McClureRegretsRiki MerrickxVirginia Lorenzi
ex officioInvited GuestsObserversHL7 Staff
xWalter Suarez (HL7 Chair) w/vote



xAnne Wizauer

Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote



x

Lynn Laakso







xRachel Foerster

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval 
    3. Approve Minutes of 2020-05-11 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
    4. Approve Minutes of 2020-05-16 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
  2. Review action items 
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved:
    1. Informative Publication Request by the Structured Docs WG of the Infrastructure SD for HL7 Informative Document: C-CDA Scorecard Rubric, Release 1- US Realm at Project Insight 1498
    2. STU Publication Request by the Patient Care WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: International Patient Summary, Release 1 at Project Insight 1525
    3. Project Approval Request by the Vocabulary WG of the Infrastructure SD for Guidelines for a Standardized Terminology Knowledge Base at Project Insight 1623
    4. Updated Project Approval Request by Security WG of the Infrastructure SD for Share with Protections White Paper at Project Insight 1566
  4. Approval items for this week:
    1. STU Extension Request by the Mobile Health WG of the Infrastructure SD for HL7 Consumer Mobile Health Application Functional Framework (cMHAFF), Release 1 at Project Insight 1452 for 2 years
    2. Informative Publication Request by the Security WG of the Infrastructure SD for HL7 Guidance: Basic Provenance for C-CDA and FHIR, Release 1 - US Realm at Project Insight 1492
    3. Normative Publication Request by the Public Health WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 Version 2.6 Implementation Guide: Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Results, Release 1 at Project Insight 898
    4. Normative Publication Request by the Conformance WG of the Infrastructure SD for HL7 Version 2 Conformance Methodology at Project Insight 1396
      Release 1
  5. Discussion topics:
    1. Messages from the TSC for:
      1. The Monday cochair webinar
        1. Communicating changes to the embargo policy
      2. The board
      3. The Product Management groups
    2. What does TSC need from the ARB in the next quarter?
    3. Virtual Connectathon feedback
    4. Coordination efforts with external terminology organizations
  6. Parking Lot
    1. Revisiting HL7 architectures and the role of ARB 
    2. Task force reports
    3. Time zones and virtual meetings
    4. Project management one-page document requested by CIC
    5. Review TSC responsibilities in the GOM (retreat topic) from 2020-02-24 TSC Agenda/Minutes
    6. Determine how we're going to implement steps to handle errata/technical corrections (2020-02-24 TSC Agenda/Minutes)
    7. Cross-Group Projects Scope Increase: Revisit after experience with project concept process (2020-02-24 TSC Agenda/Minutes)
    8. JIRA balloting and Best practices for ballot review in large organizations

Minutes

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
      1. No visitors
    2. Next week's meeting
      1. MOTION to cancel next week's meeting: Melva/Sandy
      2. VOTE: All in favor
    3. Agenda review and approval 
      1. No additions
    4. Approve Minutes of 2020-05-11 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
      1. Minutes accepted via general consent
    5. Approve Minutes of 2020-05-16 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
      1. Carry forward to next meeting
  2. Discussion topics:
    1. Messages from the TSC for:
      1. The Monday cochair webinar
        1. WG Health - how to award gold stars?  Could do virtual gold stars on Confluence pages. Anne will discuss with Laura.
        2. PSS workflow rollout and JIRA balloting
        3. Communicating changes to the embargo policy
          1. Embargo policy was suspended - need to review the board minutes to be sure. 
          2. Need to determine how this affects WG and how they operate. 
          3. The motion was to suspend the 90 day embargo but not sure how that is being implemented. 
          4. Anne reports that she believes that Lynn has removed the code that hides newly released standards
          5. What opinion do we want to give to the board about this?
          6. Lynn arrives. 
          7. The rationale was that it was punishing non-FHIR specs due to the way FHIR is published. 
            1. MOTION that the TSC seek guidance from the board as to their motion in respect to the permanence of their embargo policy: Paul/Melva
            2. Lorraine notes that she thought we were giving the board our opinion as opposed to seeking clarification
            3. Virginia: Our standards are not readily available on the website. 
            4. Melva: The board is strategic and they don't get down to the nitty gritty. They won't get into how to operationalize.
            5. Rob: We need to give our opinion. Mine is that we should agree to remove the embargo. What Virginia brought up is that we need to make sure people get access.
            6. Lorraine: Agree that we need to deal with implementation pieces. The strategic level question is fundamentally does the board think we should remove that member benefit permanently or just suspend it temporarily? 
            7. Paul: Agrees with Lorraine. Need to know the intention on permanence.
            8. Austin asks Lynn if the embargo lift has been implemented on the website? Lynn reports yes, it has. DJ has retracted the 90 day wait time. It does still request and require that a person has to download it with a license agreement and has to be logged in. That's why you can't get it from google.
            9. Wayne: This was originally a request from the CDA management group. The board was unclear about making a final decision which was why it was a suspension. 
            10. MK: Then we need to do additional updates on our website. The benefit of being a member is no longer immediate access. What is the value, then? 
            11. Paul: This should have come to the TSC first for discussion before going to the board. 
            12. Paul: Perhaps we direct staff to uphold the embargo until we have clarity on how we're going to move forward
            13. Jean: The board said they're suspending the embargo - it is clear in their motion.
            14. VOTE: Jean, Giorgio, Wayne, Melva, Rob, Sandy, MK, Walter opposed. ARB abstains.
            15. MOTION that the TSC is in agreement with removing the embargo based on the fact that it seems to be negatively impacting access to our standards without positively impacting our membership: Rob/Wayne
            16. Paul: If we don't need clarification, we should operationalize it. But do we have any evidence that it hasn't negatively impacted membership
            17. Wayne: We haven't communicated it to the cochairs, so many may be doing things to enforce this. The TSC could say that the board should reconsider if we want to. We need to research, analyze, and then make recommendations.
            18. MK: Operationalizing means going through everywhere we talk about accessing or downloading our standards as a member benefit. Austin: That is not the TSC's responsibility. We can make a recommendation. 
            19. Jean: The board has made a strategic motion that we don't like. Staff has already operationalized part of it. 
            20. AMENDED MOTION: Notify the board that we've been made aware of their decision, and based on the information they gave us of no evidence of benefit from the embargo, we agree with proceeding but we would like further analysis regarding all the places this would have to change, and a continuing assess of the impact of free access to our standards immediately upon publishing: Rob/
            21. Lorraine: The effect won't be known until we publicize it. It should be monitored over 6+ months. Could monitor how often standards are accessed in the first 90 days.
            22. Wayne: The motion doesn't make much sense. There is no reference to 90 day benefit of membership so it appears staff did their job. MK: But there is no benefit to membership without the embargo. Wayne: We need to communicate it and then revisit after a period of time and then make our recommendation.
            23. Melva: The board should not tell us what places this need to change. Analysis of membership is an ongoing thing that the board and finance committee review regularly. 
            24. Virginia: There should be an agenda item on the TSC where we can come up with our reaction to this so we can give advice to the board. 
            25. Walter: With respect to the policy, there are a number of statements of operations that include a provision around the 90 day embargo, but that's not really a board action - that's an HQ issue. What is the concern from the TSC to the board? There is a lack of understanding instead of opposition. 
            26. Rob withdraws the amended motion. Need to assess the impact of this. We should tell the board that this was done without clarifying the impacts and ask staff not to make further changes. 
            27. Austin: Original intent was that we are going to clarify to cochairs about the embargo. We could tell them that they no longer have to embargo things that are almost ready for publication. What do we tell the cochairs in 2 weeks?
              1. Lorraine:We should tell them that the 90 day embargo has been suspended and we're not currently enforcing it: Lorraine/
              2. Discussion over pre-publication material embargo. Lynn notes there wasn't an official pre-publication embargo. The material was just supposed to be posted in the members only section of the website. Lynn asserts that we don't really want to change the pre-publication policies.
              3. Paul: If we tell them the embargo is suspended and someone asks for how long, we have to say we don't know. Asks Wayne and Austin to raise those issues on the next board meeting so our message is as clear as possible.
              4. MK departs
              5. Jean: We should just leave it at the information on published standards. 
              6. Lorraine: We're just informing them of something that's a fact. Not sure why it's a motion. 
              7. Austin still wonders about the pre-publication material. Should we change that policy? Lynn stated no. Sandy agrees.
              8. Melva: I don't think we say anything about length of time this will be in effect. It's in effect until the board changes the policy. There are other benefits such as participation in development and voting, etc. 
              9. Virginia: We should work on standards in an open space where everyone can see it. Not sure about this pre-publication issue where things are in a members only space. No one is using the click through. Other people are just googling.
              10. Rob: We should just tell them that the board made this decision and it's being implemented. In terms of value of membership and where we keep our stuff, this shouldn't have any impact on expecting our processes to be followed in terms of the HL7 sites. We need to think about what membership means in context of that but this shouldn't change anything.
              11. Austin notes that we don't have a clear way to restrict content to members only on Confluence.
    2. What does TSC need from the ARB in the next quarter?
      1. Carry forward
    3. Virtual Connectathon feedback
      1. Wayne: the meeting exceeded expectations in terms of participation - 668 participants. The spirit of the attendees was positive but we haven't collected the feedback yet. A first time attendee wrote up a great report in terms of the educational experience. He recommended a hybrid type meeting with a combination of face to face and virtual. Need to figure out what we want to do for face to face meetings in the face of the pandemic. Overall, it went really well. It's encouraging that we can do a really big virtual event. People were able to hop between tracks more easily which most people found to be positive.
      2. Jean: The two tracks that Jean was on noted that the difference between the virtual and face to face was that conversation amongst the group was hampered. But the ability to move between tracks was really nice.
      3. Virginia participated and encouraged numerous members to participate. It was much easier to be quietly lurking as an observer because you're less disruptive. Having both Zoom and GoToWebinar was great. Lloyd noted that if it is going to be a 24 hour event, there would need to be a babysitter on the night shift to facilitate. 
      4. Staff noted that it was very successful and were thrilled at how it went. There are some issues with registrations and policing registration rates and unpaid registrants. May need an early bird so that more people register up front.
      5. Jean believes the virtual DevDays will be equally successful.
      6. Rob asks about membership and dues. Will likely see decreased membership based on the pandemic. Austin confirms the board is discussing this. 
      7. Virginia: The GoToWebinar was always open and you could always go there and ask for help, which was great. Was difficult to follow all the different zulip streams to find out what was going on with what. 
      8. Wayne: We didn't have time to do an early bird this time. In terms of attendees, some may have been unpaid but we had so many regirations we shouldn't worry about it. In terms of membership, we can't enforce membership rules. The GoMembers interaction is really bad. At some point maybe the world will allow face to face conferences again but that doesn't mean people will come. We need to start planning what we're doing in September.
      9. Melva: Why was GoToMeeting used? Jean: They used GoToWebinar for the beginning and end so there was capacity for all registrants to attend. Too many people for Zoom.
    4. Coordination efforts with external terminology organizations
      1. Carry foward
  3. Adjourned at 12:30 pm Eastern