This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "20110810 SAIF AP ConCall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 147: Line 147:
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
  
−
'''Doodle Poll Results: To include the EHR S FM project #551 within the SAIF AP initiative'''<br/>
 
−
Vote:  Affirmative: 6  Negative: 0  Abstain: 0
 
  
−
'''SAIF AP Logo – Doodle Poll Results'''<br/>
+
'''Adoption Process Document updates'''<br/>
−
*To summarize the comments:
+
<br/>
−
*It seems to be premature; not thrilled with the submitted logos.
+
Re: the following update in the document:<br/>
−
*The proposed logos were generally not what people expected.
+
*Removing the requirement that a Project Scope Statement must be created.  Additionally, a paragraph was included explaining instances where a PSS is not required along with Pros/Cons of creating a PSS.
−
*Austin’s goal for the logo was to brand the deliverables that come out of SAIF.
+
*Austin:  Add another line focusing on if another Work Group is adversely impacted by a WG’s internal process, they can petition the TSC and recommend that a Project Scope Statement be created since the proposed process is not internal just to the one WG. 
−
*Perhaps pushing it this early is premature.
+
<br/>
−
*Austin is happy to put this to bed for the time being.
+
Re:  Verbiage focusing on Comment Only is subject to ANSI balloting rules may be incorrect.  Project Services will research.
−
*All others agreed. Not mission critical at this point.  We can revisit this at a later date.
+
*Austin added the following:
 +
*Con for non-ballot approaches: Runs the risk of not getting people’s attention
 +
*Pro for Comment Only Ballot:  Get’s people’s attentions better
 +
<br/>
 +
*Austin: A lot of Mandated HL7 processes are not part of the WG Health Metrics.  Hence, change this to ‘are candidates for WG Health Metrics’ instead of ‘will’
 +
*Regarding the Outstanding Issue indicating that a Work Group should create and maintain a Wiki Page for Informal Ballot Comments, the group agreed that this should be removed, and allow WG’s to decide how they want to do that.
  
  
−
'''Adoption Process Document - MnM response that a process may not need a Project Scope Statement '''<br/>
 
−
*Austin:  The Work Group can make that decision; perhaps have the Steering Division provide input.
 
−
*The Adoption Process Document can give guidance for smaller scope processes.  Perhaps have the work group identify the target audience that needs to be aware of the process.
 
−
*Example:  Modeling Facilitators are a sub group of MnM, hence for the CMET Management Process, it’s a small group that is impacted by the process.
 
  
−
*Who makes the decision to not require a PSS?
+
'''Peer Review comment spreadsheet form adapted from Ballot Comment spreadsheet'''<br/>
−
*Typically it would be a process that only impacts one Work Group, or can be communicated via one Work Group (like the *Modeling Faciltators are all within the MnM group).
+
*SAIF AP Team should review the document and provide feedback.
−
*The owners of the process, can determine if a PSS is needed.
+
*The goal of the spreadsheet is to capture and reconcile comments submitted regarding the proposed process for adoption.
−
*Add a recommendation in the document to consult with the SD if a PSS is not created.
 
  
−
*The document can add recommendations when the Adoption Process should be followed. 
 
−
*Include Pros/Cons of following it or not.
 
  
−
 
+
'''Prepping for the Sept 2011 WGM Meeting'''<br/>
−
'''Discuss July 27 and Aug 3rd meetings'''<br/>
+
*Rick reviewed the RASCI chart today.
−
Cancel both meetings
+
*Once active, may want to do the RASCI chart retroactively
−
 
+
*Rick will work with CDA R3 as the pilot for the RASCI chart and hopefully will have it completed enough to present at the Sept 2011 WGM.
−
'''September  WGM Agenda in San Diego'''<br/>
+
*SAIF and Sound Whitepaper update: It’s dependant on MnM completing work on the artifact definition.  Hence there probably won’t be much to report on at the September 2011 WGM.
−
*Work on the RASCI charts for the sub projects
 
−
*Update from the SD WGs Tuesday Q3 session discussion of CDA R3 and SAIF (Kreisler)
 
  
 
<br/>Gforge Accounts can be requested via:  
 
<br/>Gforge Accounts can be requested via:  
 
http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd
 
http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd
  
−
''Adjourned 10:45 AM Eastern Time
+
''Adjourned 10:55 AM Eastern Time

Revision as of 17:48, 10 August 2011

SAIF Architecture Program – 2011-08-10 Meeting

Return to SAIF Architecture Program Wiki Home Page<br\> Return to SAIF AP Meeting Minutes and Agendas


Meeting Logistics

  • Dates: Weekly on Wednesdays
  • Time: 10:00 - 11:00 Eastern
  • Phone Number: +1 (706) 634-4215 NOTE: This call is using the pilot conference calling number!!!
  • Participant Passcode: 124466
  • Web Coordinates: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/768017802 Meeting ID: 768-017-802

Agenda

  1. Role Call
  2. Agenda Review
  3. Adoption Process Document updates from Project Services (Haddorff) ( HL7AdoptionProcess_draftV10.doc )
    1. Peer Review comment spreadsheet form adapted from Ballot Comment spreadsheet( Review comments_ArtifactName_draft1.xls )
      1. Developed by Project Services at suggestion of SAIF AP in conjunction with proposed adoption process
  4. Prepping for the Sept WGM Meeting
    1. Present what needs to be done for a RASCI chart (which will be a Sept WGM agenda item) (Haddorff)
    2. SD WG Tuesday Q3 session in San Diego (CDA R3 and SAIF) – invite SAIF AP people to attend that, if interested.
  6. Recurring Agenda Items
    1. New Agenda items for San Diego Sept. WGM – Wednesday Q4: 20110914_SAIF_AP_Meeting
      1. Add the following to the Agenda: SAIF and Sound White paper???
    2. Pilot Coordination updates (Rick Haddorff)
      1. Any new Coordination items? (Team)
      2. Project Schedule progress (Rick Haddorff)
  7. Action item review (see below)
  8. Next steps
  9. Please complete the conference calling pilot survey. Next week starts the pilot of the new platform

Action Items to Review

  • None to review


Link to the Complete List of Action Items/Issues/Risks (GForge)


Meeting Attendees

X=Present on Call

Facilitator Austin Kreisler Note taker(s) David Hamill
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Austin Kreisler TSC Chair
Brian Pech Interested Participant
X David Hamill HL7 HQ / Program Manager
Ed Tripp Domain Experts SD \ TSC
Gregg Seppala Product Quality Plan Project
Jane Curry Tooling
Jim McClay Emergency Care
John Moehrke Security Cookbook
John Quinn HL7 CTO
Lloyd McKenzie MnM Work Group / SAIF Implementation Guide Pjt
Lorraine Constable Composite Order Pjt \ OO Behavioral Framework Pjt
Patrick Loyd OO Work Group / Composite Order Pjt
X Rick Haddorff Project Services WG / SAIF Pilot Coordination Pjt
Robert Lario Object Management
X Pat Van Dyke EHR WG
X Steve Hufnagel ArB / SAIF Book Project / SOA
Wendy Huang Implementation Conformance WG
Gary Dickinson EHR WG
Freida Hall Project Services WG
Quorum Requirements Met: No

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:


Adoption Process Document updates

Re: the following update in the document:

  • Removing the requirement that a Project Scope Statement must be created. Additionally, a paragraph was included explaining instances where a PSS is not required along with Pros/Cons of creating a PSS.
  • Austin: Add another line focusing on if another Work Group is adversely impacted by a WG’s internal process, they can petition the TSC and recommend that a Project Scope Statement be created since the proposed process is not internal just to the one WG.


Re: Verbiage focusing on Comment Only is subject to ANSI balloting rules may be incorrect. Project Services will research.

  • Austin added the following:
  • Con for non-ballot approaches: Runs the risk of not getting people’s attention
  • Pro for Comment Only Ballot: Get’s people’s attentions better


  • Austin: A lot of Mandated HL7 processes are not part of the WG Health Metrics. Hence, change this to ‘are candidates for WG Health Metrics’ instead of ‘will’
  • Regarding the Outstanding Issue indicating that a Work Group should create and maintain a Wiki Page for Informal Ballot Comments, the group agreed that this should be removed, and allow WG’s to decide how they want to do that.


Peer Review comment spreadsheet form adapted from Ballot Comment spreadsheet

  • SAIF AP Team should review the document and provide feedback.
  • The goal of the spreadsheet is to capture and reconcile comments submitted regarding the proposed process for adoption.


Prepping for the Sept 2011 WGM Meeting

  • Rick reviewed the RASCI chart today.
  • Once active, may want to do the RASCI chart retroactively
  • Rick will work with CDA R3 as the pilot for the RASCI chart and hopefully will have it completed enough to present at the Sept 2011 WGM.
  • SAIF and Sound Whitepaper update: It’s dependant on MnM completing work on the artifact definition. Hence there probably won’t be much to report on at the September 2011 WGM.


Gforge Accounts can be requested via: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd

Adjourned 10:55 AM Eastern Time

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20110810_SAIF_AP_ConCall&oldid=53039"