This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20181102 PLA call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===============================================================================---> | ===============================================================================---> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Calvin Beebe | + | |x || Calvin Beebe |
|- | |- | ||
| ||Lorraine Constable | | ||Lorraine Constable | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| || Paul Knapp | | || Paul Knapp | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Austin Kreisler, | + | | x|| Austin Kreisler, |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Mary Kay McDaniel | + | |x || Mary Kay McDaniel |
|- | |- | ||
| || Brian Pech | | || Brian Pech | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
*Discussion topics | *Discussion topics | ||
**Catch-all product family | **Catch-all product family | ||
| − | **Where | + | **Where do roles of a management group reside when there is a lack of a management group |
**Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away | **Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away | ||
**Management group health metrics | **Management group health metrics | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Minutes=== | ===Minutes=== | ||
| − | + | Agenda review | |
| − | + | *Notes of [[20181019_PLA_call]] review | |
| − | Adjourned | + | *Discussion topics |
| + | **Catch-all product family | ||
| + | ***The issue is “niche products.” Discussion over appropriate name. Perhaps “specialty products.” Who manages the quality issues when there is no PMG? Could review PMG mission and charters and mock one up to see what it might look like. | ||
| + | **Where do roles of a management group reside when there is a lack of a management group | ||
| + | **Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away | ||
| + | ***Discussion over any role here for this issue. Calvin: We need to look at our processes to figure out what functions/roles they are fulfilling when a product management group exists. Austin: Is there a method for streamlining approval processes. Perhaps we stop the up and down SD votes and just make it an opportunity for WGs to raise any red flags. MK went through and read the last two years’ worth of SD meeting minutes. They are relatively consistent in what they do: review PSSs, review WG health, review info from cochair dinner, reiterate important dates, highlight elections, review M&Cs and DMPs. Calvin: SD chairs represent the membership of the TSC – can’t get rid of that. Austin: A major overlap is project scope statements. Calvin: Our new tooling may give us the mechanism to streamline all this. MK: All the voting should be done in Confluence. Calvin: Maybe we don’t ask for votes, we ask for comments. The vote then takes place in the TSC. Two critical vote places: Management Group and TSC. But we need to carefully look at what impact it has to the workflow of the TSC. Tony: Management groups have made things more difficult. Not sure the management groups should be approving or disapproving a project unless it’s going to break the methodology. You can’t gauge quality from a PSS – not until it’s ready to ballot. Calvin: We could consider that the PMGs have different perspectives covered, so there is some level of sanity check they could do. Should they comment to the TSC or vote? Austin: SD cochairs should still do the assessment of WG health/project health to see if they still qualify to move forward. Calvin: Could that go to the PMG? Austin: It’s an assessment of the WG’s ability, not the project. PMGs aren’t responsible for the WGs. Anne notes she often performs the WG health check on PSSs as many come without it noted. | ||
| + | ****ACTION: Add to next agenda when more people are present | ||
| + | *Adjourned at 12:20 pm | ||
===Meeting Outcomes=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
| Line 124: | Line 131: | ||
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | |width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | ||
| − | *[[ | + | *[[20181116 PLA call]] |
|} | |} | ||
| − | © | + | © 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved |
Latest revision as of 20:28, 15 November 2018
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: 2018-11-02 Time: 11:30 AM | ||
| Facilitator | Mary Kay/ Austin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Jean Duteau, | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| Paul Knapp | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler, | ||
| x | Mary Kay McDaniel | ||
| Brian Pech | |||
| Wayne Kubick | |||
| John Roberts | |||
| Andy Stechishin | |||
| no quorum definition | |||
Agenda
Agenda review
- Notes of 20181019_PLA_call review
- Discussion topics
- Catch-all product family
- Where do roles of a management group reside when there is a lack of a management group
- Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away
- Management group health metrics
- 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
Minutes
Agenda review
- Notes of 20181019_PLA_call review
- Discussion topics
- Catch-all product family
- The issue is “niche products.” Discussion over appropriate name. Perhaps “specialty products.” Who manages the quality issues when there is no PMG? Could review PMG mission and charters and mock one up to see what it might look like.
- Where do roles of a management group reside when there is a lack of a management group
- Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away
- Discussion over any role here for this issue. Calvin: We need to look at our processes to figure out what functions/roles they are fulfilling when a product management group exists. Austin: Is there a method for streamlining approval processes. Perhaps we stop the up and down SD votes and just make it an opportunity for WGs to raise any red flags. MK went through and read the last two years’ worth of SD meeting minutes. They are relatively consistent in what they do: review PSSs, review WG health, review info from cochair dinner, reiterate important dates, highlight elections, review M&Cs and DMPs. Calvin: SD chairs represent the membership of the TSC – can’t get rid of that. Austin: A major overlap is project scope statements. Calvin: Our new tooling may give us the mechanism to streamline all this. MK: All the voting should be done in Confluence. Calvin: Maybe we don’t ask for votes, we ask for comments. The vote then takes place in the TSC. Two critical vote places: Management Group and TSC. But we need to carefully look at what impact it has to the workflow of the TSC. Tony: Management groups have made things more difficult. Not sure the management groups should be approving or disapproving a project unless it’s going to break the methodology. You can’t gauge quality from a PSS – not until it’s ready to ballot. Calvin: We could consider that the PMGs have different perspectives covered, so there is some level of sanity check they could do. Should they comment to the TSC or vote? Austin: SD cochairs should still do the assessment of WG health/project health to see if they still qualify to move forward. Calvin: Could that go to the PMG? Austin: It’s an assessment of the WG’s ability, not the project. PMGs aren’t responsible for the WGs. Anne notes she often performs the WG health check on PSSs as many come without it noted.
- ACTION: Add to next agenda when more people are present
- Discussion over any role here for this issue. Calvin: We need to look at our processes to figure out what functions/roles they are fulfilling when a product management group exists. Austin: Is there a method for streamlining approval processes. Perhaps we stop the up and down SD votes and just make it an opportunity for WGs to raise any red flags. MK went through and read the last two years’ worth of SD meeting minutes. They are relatively consistent in what they do: review PSSs, review WG health, review info from cochair dinner, reiterate important dates, highlight elections, review M&Cs and DMPs. Calvin: SD chairs represent the membership of the TSC – can’t get rid of that. Austin: A major overlap is project scope statements. Calvin: Our new tooling may give us the mechanism to streamline all this. MK: All the voting should be done in Confluence. Calvin: Maybe we don’t ask for votes, we ask for comments. The vote then takes place in the TSC. Two critical vote places: Management Group and TSC. But we need to carefully look at what impact it has to the workflow of the TSC. Tony: Management groups have made things more difficult. Not sure the management groups should be approving or disapproving a project unless it’s going to break the methodology. You can’t gauge quality from a PSS – not until it’s ready to ballot. Calvin: We could consider that the PMGs have different perspectives covered, so there is some level of sanity check they could do. Should they comment to the TSC or vote? Austin: SD cochairs should still do the assessment of WG health/project health to see if they still qualify to move forward. Calvin: Could that go to the PMG? Austin: It’s an assessment of the WG’s ability, not the project. PMGs aren’t responsible for the WGs. Anne notes she often performs the WG health check on PSSs as many come without it noted.
- Catch-all product family
- Adjourned at 12:20 pm
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
