20141119 PLA call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas
Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Program

HL7 PLA Call Minutes

Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371,

Date: 2014-1118
Time: 2PM
Facilitator Mary Kay/ Austin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
Woody Beeler
Lorraine Constable
Bo Dagnall
Jean Duteau,
x Rick Haddorff
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler,
Lynn Laakso
x Mary Kay McDaniel
x Brian Pech
John Quinn
x John Roberts
Andy Stechishin
no quorum definition


Agenda review

  • Notes of 20141112_PLA_call review
  • Continued review/creation of mission & charter, makeup, pros and cons
  • notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review.
    • Level of granularity
    • Identify which pieces are orphaned, and the political elements to be surfaced.
    • Positioning cross-product family artifacts (standards naming)
  • BAM-lite feedback and review
    • Governance on V2.x (v2.9 substantive changes)
    • develop form to request establishing a Product Family


  • Convened at 2:08. MaryKay reviewed minutes from last call. Austin moved to accept minutes; John seconds.
  • MaryKay brought up the draft mission and charter. Reviewed structure. Paul asks if some of the discussion from ARB come forward to this call. Tony says the Cecil felt that the ARB should be the governance board – the concern raised about that was that it could represent more work confusion. Concerns on this call were that it may affect ARB’s productivity. ARB is like the supreme court hanging off on the side of the process and providing dispute resolution and informing the process via the TSC. The work of the ARB could be altered and weakened. What does FGB do that would have to be done by the ARB, and is there bandwidth? If ARB were to be the governance board, there would have to be a change to its constitution and it would disperse/dilute the group. Ken McCaslin first floated the idea out earlier this year. It has come up multiple times when ARB became the methodology wing of the TSC. Previously it was like the supreme court and this would be a resumption of that as opposed to becoming THE governance board. What does a governance board do? What do we need groups doing at the enterprise level for HL7? We need someone to oversee SD architecture; a group that manages that; and a group that governs that. Methodologists, management, governance. ARB has been methodology and TSC is both management and governance. So this would be slicing off governance and forming a group to do that. MaryKay feels that governance is more global across all of the groups, all of the activities, and it becomes the decision maker for everyone; managers make it happen, keeps it moving. If governance role went to ARB, who is the methodology group?
  • What is the mission of the Governance Board? Group had lengthy discussion regarding governance, management, and methodology. Made swimlanes for each. TSC must straddle governance and management. ARB = methodology. They identify methodology for layers below. TSC will carve off a piece of their governance responsibility and assign it to another group. Reminder that this exercise applies to product families only – titled the chart “Product Family and Product Line Organizational Relationships.” Added roles for TSC, Steering divisions, governance board. Completed diagram of relationship between TSC, ARB, Steering divisions, governance board, WGs
  • Decision made to add call on December 3rd.
  • Adjourned at 3:06.

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved