Jump to navigation Jump to search
- Regrets: Nat Wong, Mike Kingery
- Agenda review and approval (Suggestions or additions to and acceptance of agenda)
- Minutes review and approval
- 12 August 2013
- Proposal to make Jeff Brown an Intrim co-chair effective immediately
- Jeff will not be able to attend the ES WG call today due to family event - He has agreed to run for co-chair of ES effective the September 2013 WGM - His stated can be found on that announcement
- Notice of Intent to Ballot - Electronic proceedurs
- Seems to be on-going issues with co-sponsor WG co-chairs not aware of ballot
- Seems to be external stakeholders moving things forward with out key input from sponsoring WG
- Can we do something to improve the process and track issues
- Should there be a pending NIB generated when Project Insight indicates it is due?
- Should this generated NIB be distributed during the prior WGM so it begins the discussion?
- Can Project Insight drive this? Can emails be created to SD Co-chairs, sponsoring WG, co-sponsoring WG and project faciliator?
- Extracted from PS WG Meeting minutes 22-August-2013: Recent issues around WGs cosponsoring project that feel 'cut out of the loop' on input to content before ballot etc. What mechanisms can make sure that cosponsors are in the loop? One idea is that with a NIB there should be a place for cosponsors' agreement to go to ballot. May impede project progress if cosponsors ignore their responsibility. Calvin asks if all cosponsors want same level of participation or should additional levels be defined? Some WGs indicated as cosponsors may only want to be interested parties, notes Austin. Mead asks for an example: CDA IG for Digital Signatures, where Security WG objected to lack of opportunity to review prior to SDWG advancing to ballot. Jean notes that with nutrition dam and allergies dam the Pharmacy WG insisted on a content review. In the nutrition dam Pharmacy went from interested party to cosponsor based on the way in which the modeling went. Melva notes that primary sponsor WG project team members also need to take responsibility to remember their cosponsors. Austin cautions for those projects where development work occurs outside of HL7 this is particularly problematic. He adds that there should be governance, management and methodology role definitions with a PSS for cosponsored project. There may be a common responsibility for sponsorship of the project. Lorraine notes a single WG needs to ensure responsibility for the project steps to be done. Ken notes the responsibility should lie with the project facilitator. Austin notes project facilitators may not be aware they've been tagged with the project. Need to align the various roles with hoe they appear on the PSS. Action item: Freida notes that Rick Haddorff and she on the Project Services group that work with the SAIF AP could bring something on these roles and clarification in the PSS back in two weeks. Austin notes it could wait for Cambridge. Freida notes that Dave is working on the 2014 release of the PSS now, so the timing is appropriate.
- SWOT Final Approval
- Current document 
- Review of WGM Assignment project
- Current presentation 
- WGM Planning
- Powerpoint slides for general session
- Content for board liaison report
- Presentation for WGM Assignment project
- New Business
- Meeting minutes are sent via email prior to the next meeting via es@lists.HL7.org
- Approved meeting minutes can be found on the ES WG page at hl7.org
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.