20110720 SAIF AP ConCall

SAIF Architecture Program – 2011-07-20 Meeting

Return to SAIF Architecture Program Wiki Home Page<br\> Return to SAIF AP Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Meeting Logistics

• Dates: Weekly on Wednesdays
• Time: 10:00 - 11:00 Eastern
• Phone Number: +1 (770) 657 9270
• Participant Passcode: 124466
• Web Coordinates: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/768017802 Meeting ID: 768-017-802

Agenda

1. Role Call
2. Agenda Review
3. Doodle Poll Results: Determining the SAIF AP Logo
   1. Review Feedback/Comments (Lloyd McKenzie email, others)
4. Adoption Process Document - MnM response that a process may not need a Project Scope Statement
   1. MnM does not want to see a project for the CMET Management Process; They felt it was too fine grain for it. Hence, the Adoption Process may need to be modified to determine if the process is big enough to warrant a Project Scope Statement.
   2. So if a PSS isn’t needed, what is the alternative flow?
   3. PSC Questions to SAIF AP and MnM
      1. Who makes the decision to not require a Project Scope Statement (PSS)?
      2. How will a process without a PSS be communicated?
      3. [Latest draft version of the Adoption process ]
5. Discuss July 27 and Aug 3rd meetings
   1. July 27 – Austin is at the Board Retreat
   2. Aug 3rd – Dave is OOO; Austin has Jury Duty that Monday (implications unknown)
7. Recurring Agenda Items
   1. Any open positions/resource needs by the SAIF AP? (Tracker 1893)
      1. Wrappers R2 needs a resource to work on requirements - have asked Tony Julian for a description of the position
   2. Agenda items for San Diego Sept. WGM – Wednesday Q4 (Tracker 1939 info below) 20110914_SAIF_AP_Meeting
   3. Pilot Coordination updates (Rick Haddorff)
      1. Any new Coordination items? (Team)
      2. Project Schedule progress (Rick Haddorff)
8. Action item review (see below)
9. Next steps

Action Items to Review

1944: Should a SAIF Governance document be created via the SAIF Pilot Coordination Project? <br\>

• MnM feedback:
• MnM is not interested in a separate project for Governance. They feel it will be part of SAIF IG.
• MnM is doing artifact definitions and part of the artifact definition template is baking in the governance aspect for that artifact. This will take care of some of the governance work.
• Other aspects can governance can be part of the SAIF IG.

Today's Update: Close this tracker

1862: Review the OO project and Create OO PSS's Status of the three OO Project Scope Statements Today's Update: Still waiting for the SSD SD to send them out for review/approval. They have been approved at the Work Group level.

1947: Do we need a PSS for the CMET Management Clean-up and New Process? <br\>

• MnM does not want to see a project for the CMET Management Process
• They felt it was too fine grain for them.
• Hence, the Adoption Process may need to be modified to determine if the process is big enough to warrant a Project Scope Statement.
• So if a PSS isn’t needed, what is the alternative flow?

Today's Update: See discussion below regarding the Adoption Process

1939 Suggestions for Sept 2011 WGM SAIF AP Agenda From Calvin Beebe

• The Structured Documents WG would like to host a session at the Sept WGM on CDA R3 and SAIF considerations. We currently have the session planned for Tuesday Q3, if your committee or members from your committee could attend this session that would be great. Given the large number of committees and their interest in the CDA R3 efforts underway, we thought that a joint session with ITS, M&M, Tooling and Publishing would be the best venue to discuss this topic.
• Please advise if your committee will be joining us for this session and I will post their participation on the HL7 Meeting Calendar.

Today's Update: See discussion below

Link to the Complete List of Action Items/Issues/Risks (GForge)

Meeting Attendees

X=Present on Call

Facilitator	Austin Kreisler	Note taker(s)	David Hamill
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Austin Kreisler	TSC Chair
	Brian Pech	Interested Participant
X	David Hamill	HL7 HQ / Program Manager
	Ed Tripp	Domain Experts SD \ TSC
	Gregg Seppala	Product Quality Plan Project
	Jane Curry	Tooling
	Jim McClay	Emergency Care
	John Moehrke	Security Cookbook
	John Quinn	HL7 CTO
	Lloyd McKenzie	MnM Work Group / SAIF Implementation Guide Pjt
	Lorraine Constable	Composite Order Pjt \ OO Behavioral Framework Pjt
X	Patrick Loyd	OO Work Group / Composite Order Pjt
X	Rick Haddorff	Project Services WG / SAIF Pilot Coordination Pjt
	Robert Lario	Object Management
	Pat Van Dyke	EHR WG
X	Steve Hufnagel	ArB / SAIF Book Project / SOA
	Wendy Huang	Implementation Conformance WG
	Gary Dickinson	EHR WG
	Freida Hall	Project Services WG
Quorum Requirements Met: No

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Doodle Poll Results: To include the EHR S FM project #551 within the SAIF AP initiative
Vote: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 0 Abstain: 0

SAIF AP Logo – Doodle Poll Results

• To summarize the comments:
• It seems to be premature; not thrilled with the submitted logos.
• The proposed logos were generally not what people expected.
• Austin’s goal for the logo was to brand the deliverables that come out of SAIF.
• Perhaps pushing it this early is premature.
• Austin is happy to put this to bed for the time being.
• All others agreed. Not mission critical at this point. We can revisit this at a later date.

Adoption Process Document - MnM response that a process may not need a Project Scope Statement

• Austin: The Work Group can make that decision; perhaps have the Steering Division provide input.
• The Adoption Process Document can give guidance for smaller scope processes. Perhaps have the work group identify the target audience that needs to be aware of the process.
• Example: Modeling Facilitators are a sub group of MnM, hence for the CMET Management Process, it’s a small group that is impacted by the process.

• Who makes the decision to not require a PSS?
• Typically it would be a process that only impacts one Work Group, or can be communicated via one Work Group (like the *Modeling Faciltators are all within the MnM group).
• The owners of the process, can determine if a PSS is needed.
• Add a recommendation in the document to consult with the SD if a PSS is not created.

• The document can add recommendations when the Adoption Process should be followed.
• Include Pros/Cons of following it or not.

Discuss July 27 and Aug 3rd meetings
Cancel both meetings

September WGM Agenda in San Diego

• Work on the RASCI charts for the sub projects
• Update from the SD WGs Tuesday Q3 session discussion of CDA R3 and SAIF (Kreisler)

Gforge Accounts can be requested via: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd

Adjourned 10:45 AM Eastern Time

New Action Items

Rick – Take feedback on the Adoption Process Document to the Project Services Work Group and modify the document accordingly.
Dave – Cancel the July 27 and Aug 3 SAIF calls
Dave – Update the Sept WGM Agenda
Austin – Follow up with Tony Julian regarding the Wrappers R2
Austin – Follow up with Calvin regarding the SSD SD review/approval of the OO project scope statements