Difference between revisions of "20100304 arb minutes"
m |
m (→Agenda) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*Review of Wiki organization | *Review of Wiki organization | ||
**What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan? | **What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan? | ||
| − | *Review the Peer Review spreadsheet | + | ** Defered in absence of Jane |
| − | ** | + | ==Review the Peer Review spreadsheet == |
| − | + | **Finalize the list of required reviewers | |
| − | + | INTRO, ECCF, BF, GF FTSD. | |
| + | |||
| + | BF add structure and semantic design, and strucdoc. | ||
| + | BF & GF: Domain experts SD | ||
| + | Karen Smith: Think the BF Paperwork should be sent for the peer review. WOuld like to set up a schedule to improve this as far as the safety document papers, becuase I need to have all comments by April 9, so I would have time to type it up to finish. | ||
| + | Ron Parker: Is there an expectation that we would be cycling the comments back until after the spring partnership meeting. Then we will cycle the comments back. | ||
| + | Karen Smith: When do you think that might happen? | ||
| + | Ron Parker: Middle of april gives us time to review before spring meeting. Work Groups need two weeks to review. | ||
| + | Helen Parker: You need the document out for four weeks for the review. You might want to book a quarter with the expected work groups in anticipation of the dialog. You must submit agenda two weeks in advance. | ||
| + | Ron Parker: ECCF has already been pulled by performance. If we can get it out next week, that gives us march, and have comments due by first week of April. | ||
| + | Ron Parker: Dont believe Karen will have to toucht the materials until after the spring WGM. | ||
| + | Karen Smith: I still have plans on working on things, I need to make adjustments to the SAIF book to add the BF. | ||
| + | Ron Parker: We are presuming you will ba able to participate on the calls in April. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Helen Stevens: I agree with identifying the key stakeholders, but it must be overtly available to all stakeholders. | ||
| + | Ron Parker: I will work with Lynn to publicise. | ||
| + | John Koisch: When you do a review there is a minimum number of voters, but this is not that - what do we do if we dont get participation? What is plan B if we dont get feedback, or at what point are we done? | ||
| + | Ron Parker: We are providing opportunity. We will announcement, wait a week, advertise again. Then we will notify the TSC of our concerns with lack of participation. If we dont get the coverage, we will consider ouselves done at the spring partnership. We understand there will be comments on appropriateness and utility. | ||
| + | John Koisch: At what point are we done? | ||
| + | Ron Parker: We will do due diligencs. We will make the documents transparent. We will provide the opportunity - if they don't show up, we will continue to publish. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Task force Statement== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Decision Making Practices== | ||
http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/arb/ARBDEcisionmakingpracticesv3.0.doc | http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/arb/ARBDEcisionmakingpracticesv3.0.doc | ||
| − | + | ==Other business and planning for next meeting== | |
| − | + | ==Adjournment== | |
==Logistics== | ==Logistics== | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 4 March 2010
Architecture review Board Meeting Agenda
March 4, 2010 DRAFT
Present:
ARB: Tony Julian, Ron Parker, John Koisch, Patrick Loyd, Cecil Lynch, Dale Nelson
Guest: Helen Stevens, Karen Smith
Regrets: Cliff Thompson
Contents
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Call to Order
- Review of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
February 25, 2010 Minutes MMS to approve minutes (John/Tony) (3-0-1)
- Security Ontology report to TSC: Cecil will be working with group, we are supportive, and will help to shape it to make it achievable.
Helen: It was sent back to Steering Divison. Ron parker: We wanted to convey we were supportive, just need more input.
- Review of Wiki organization
- What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan?
- Defered in absence of Jane
Review the Peer Review spreadsheet
- Finalize the list of required reviewers
INTRO, ECCF, BF, GF FTSD.
BF add structure and semantic design, and strucdoc. BF & GF: Domain experts SD Karen Smith: Think the BF Paperwork should be sent for the peer review. WOuld like to set up a schedule to improve this as far as the safety document papers, becuase I need to have all comments by April 9, so I would have time to type it up to finish. Ron Parker: Is there an expectation that we would be cycling the comments back until after the spring partnership meeting. Then we will cycle the comments back. Karen Smith: When do you think that might happen? Ron Parker: Middle of april gives us time to review before spring meeting. Work Groups need two weeks to review. Helen Parker: You need the document out for four weeks for the review. You might want to book a quarter with the expected work groups in anticipation of the dialog. You must submit agenda two weeks in advance. Ron Parker: ECCF has already been pulled by performance. If we can get it out next week, that gives us march, and have comments due by first week of April. Ron Parker: Dont believe Karen will have to toucht the materials until after the spring WGM. Karen Smith: I still have plans on working on things, I need to make adjustments to the SAIF book to add the BF. Ron Parker: We are presuming you will ba able to participate on the calls in April.
Helen Stevens: I agree with identifying the key stakeholders, but it must be overtly available to all stakeholders. Ron Parker: I will work with Lynn to publicise. John Koisch: When you do a review there is a minimum number of voters, but this is not that - what do we do if we dont get participation? What is plan B if we dont get feedback, or at what point are we done? Ron Parker: We are providing opportunity. We will announcement, wait a week, advertise again. Then we will notify the TSC of our concerns with lack of participation. If we dont get the coverage, we will consider ouselves done at the spring partnership. We understand there will be comments on appropriateness and utility. John Koisch: At what point are we done? Ron Parker: We will do due diligencs. We will make the documents transparent. We will provide the opportunity - if they don't show up, we will continue to publish.
Task force Statement
Decision Making Practices
http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/arb/ARBDEcisionmakingpracticesv3.0.doc
Other business and planning for next meeting
Adjournment
Logistics
11:00 am U. S. Eastern
Please consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for your local times
Dial 770-657-9270 Passcode 854126#
