20080124 Arb Minutes

Agenda - 20080124

Attendees:

• Cecil Lynch
• John Koisch
• Tony Julian
• Grahame Grieve
• Jane Curry
• Ron Parker
• Yongjian Bao
• Abdul Malik Shakir
• John Quinn
• Mead Walker

Agenda:

• Infrastructure
  • skype channel
  • wiki
  • temporary wiki
  • telcon appointment
• Mission
• Goals
• Projects
  • re-org
  • dynamic model
• Issues
  • Ioana's letter and Grahame's response
  • Concern with the ArB
  • the v2 Back Door issue
  • the efficacy of projects / project management within HL7

Minutes:

• JC offers to host GoToMeeting to any ArB meetings, CL backup
• GG updated the group on the project to start a re-organization project, Ioana's questions, and his response. Response from the co-chairs has been positive for the most part. Q: does the project approval process always go through the foundation committee first? ArB is not part of Foundation steering division, so perhaps it is appropriate to go directly to TSC for their review. Consensus: that we go to Foundation SD for approval and agreement re: content and focus of the project, but not project-level approval, which would be relegated to the TSC. Next step is to write a formal project proposal (GG).
• Tabling discussion re: DM for next week. CL and YB suggest adding qualifiers to the wiki. RP suggests engaging next week.
• JK will put up a wiki page to capture community concern re: ArB
• GG Updated ArB on the v2 backdoor issue (length is normative in the spec, but can be ammended locally without damaging conformance). This is an issue that would have gone to the ArB in its previous iteration, and it needs resolution. Suggested course of action: stay out of the issue for now (GG). JQ noted that in the long run, there is a need for a strategic plan that can address inconsistencies in HL7 standards. CL noted that we should not have an off the cuff answer to issues such as this, but that this is def. in scope for ArB. Suggested straw man response: "The issue of length normativity (?) is one of which technical bindings should be implemented at the local level. It is not the purpose of the ArB, MnM, or of HL7 to mandate or standardize technical bindings, recognizing that they are a matter of local implementation and governance. To that end, the standard stands as written, which says that length is informative in the standard, but may be normative in local implementations between trading partners." GG requested a measured, rather than visceral, response in spite of community urgency. GG suggested JQ making such a statement on the co-chair thread.
• CL noted that one of the tasks of the ArB is to collate the inconsistencies that are currently raising their heads now. This can serve as a semi-prioritization for the ArB "rack and stack"
• JK raised the question of whether it is in ArB's purview to examine the efficacy of HL7's processes and methodology. JQ answered that while there are indeed issues, and it is within the ArB's purview, we should be very careful in approaching these sort of over-arching issues. We should only tackle these hot-button issues after engendering trust with the community. We need some demonstrated successes, etc. JC wondered whether there were any overlapping responsibilities we needed to resolve.
• Other issues (ad hoc):
  • ArB scope is on the main page of the wiki, and we need to come to some consensus regarding this scope. People should work via the wiki to craft a good scope, mission, etc.
  • CL raised the issue re: consistency of tool development. GG questioned whether this is an issue for ArB. JK noted that ArB is a governance body rather than a design committee. MW wants to elevate the ArB quality requirements to include those for tooling and to enforce governance so that we can improve the final product. JC believes that it is def in ArB purview to deal with tooling.
  • RP wants to make sure that we are structured and rigorous as we approach the May WGM