Difference between revisions of "20100211 arb minutes"
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
*Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review | *Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review | ||
*Review of poposed timeline for Peer Review | *Review of poposed timeline for Peer Review | ||
| + | Ron Parker: I did update to review document: (Presented on screen). Would expect FTSD work group to review. This will be an open call, but there is a required minimum list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: When you disposition you will give them equal weighting? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ron Parker: Yes, it is just to be sure that FTSD has engaged. Strong element to make sure everyone that wants to can touch the material. Helen: You agree that six weeks is required. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: Send out a general announcement at the end of this week, with the schedule. Send to HQ to include in newsletter. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ron Parker: Charlie is doing a piece on SAIF. I will send out announcement tomorrow, and another when ready. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: Make sure everone is welcome, and every commenter will be recognized. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ron Parker: What are our options? Do we need to host slots for people to come, or go to them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: You go through them and disposition - then you schedule quarters at WGM, publish as disposition schedule. At the WGM a lot of comittes block vote on the typos, then set agenda on contentious comments. You might find voter unable to attend, so you might discuss by phone. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ron Parker: So all are aware of disposition, and have ability to discuss. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: Since this is closed ballot pool, you will not have to do reconcillation ballot - if you cannot resolve with voter, escalate to the TSC through Ron or Charlie. | ||
| + | Difficult to assess room needs. Need to know lattitude | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: make sure you publish. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jane Curry: Thought we would visit group Sessions at the WGM | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ron Parker: May not be able too - too many groups, not enough quarters. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: If you are going to resolve MnM comments in joint with MnM, you need to publish to entire list of voters. | ||
| + | |||
==Review of OO project scope statement. == | ==Review of OO project scope statement. == | ||
==Review of HL7 Project Scope Statement v2010Jan Security and Privacy Ontology R1.== | ==Review of HL7 Project Scope Statement v2010Jan Security and Privacy Ontology R1.== | ||
Revision as of 00:20, 12 February 2010
Architecture review Board Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2010
Contents
- 1 Logistics
- 2 Attendance
- 3 Agenda
- 4 Call to order
- 5 Review of Agenda
- 6 Approval of Minutes
- 7 Peer Review with PIC (Helen Stevens)
- 8 Review of OO project scope statement.
- 9 Review of HL7 Project Scope Statement v2010Jan Security and Privacy Ontology R1.
- 10 SAIF document review schedule.(Karen Smith)
- 11 Other business and planning for next meeting
- 12 Adjournment
Logistics
Dial 770-657-9270 Passcode 854126#
goto meeting: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/842103802
Attendance
Ann Wrightson, Tony Julian, Cecil Lynch, Ron Parker, Charlie Mead, Cliff Thompson, Dale Nelson, John Koisch,andy bond, scott robertson, Jane Curry,karen Smith, patrick loyd, Helen Stevens
Agenda
- Call to order
- Review of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
- Peer Review with PIC/Helen Stevens
- Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review
- Review of poposed timeline for Peer Review
- Review of OO project scope statement.
- Review of HL7 Project Scope Statement SOA Ontology R1.
- SAIF document review schedule.
- Other business and planning for next meeting
- Adjournment
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00PM U. S. Eastern with Ron Parker as chair and Tony Julian as scribe.
Review of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
February 4, 2010 Minutes MMS to approve minutes as written Koisch/Loyd. (10-0-0)
Peer Review with PIC (Helen Stevens)
- Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review
- Review of poposed timeline for Peer Review
Ron Parker: I did update to review document: (Presented on screen). Would expect FTSD work group to review. This will be an open call, but there is a required minimum list.
Helen Stevens: When you disposition you will give them equal weighting?
Ron Parker: Yes, it is just to be sure that FTSD has engaged. Strong element to make sure everyone that wants to can touch the material. Helen: You agree that six weeks is required.
Helen Stevens: Send out a general announcement at the end of this week, with the schedule. Send to HQ to include in newsletter.
Ron Parker: Charlie is doing a piece on SAIF. I will send out announcement tomorrow, and another when ready.
Helen Stevens: Make sure everone is welcome, and every commenter will be recognized.
Ron Parker: What are our options? Do we need to host slots for people to come, or go to them.
Helen Stevens: You go through them and disposition - then you schedule quarters at WGM, publish as disposition schedule. At the WGM a lot of comittes block vote on the typos, then set agenda on contentious comments. You might find voter unable to attend, so you might discuss by phone.
Ron Parker: So all are aware of disposition, and have ability to discuss.
Helen Stevens: Since this is closed ballot pool, you will not have to do reconcillation ballot - if you cannot resolve with voter, escalate to the TSC through Ron or Charlie. Difficult to assess room needs. Need to know lattitude
Helen Stevens: make sure you publish.
Jane Curry: Thought we would visit group Sessions at the WGM
Ron Parker: May not be able too - too many groups, not enough quarters.
Helen Stevens: If you are going to resolve MnM comments in joint with MnM, you need to publish to entire list of voters.
