This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20110810 SAIF AP ConCall
Contents
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
- Role Call
- Agenda Review
- Adoption Process Document updates from Project Services (Haddorff) ( HL7AdoptionProcess_draftV10.doc )
- Peer Review comment spreadsheet form adapted from Ballot Comment spreadsheet( Review comments_ArtifactName_draft1.xls )
- Developed by Project Services at suggestion of SAIF AP in conjunction with proposed adoption process
- Peer Review comment spreadsheet form adapted from Ballot Comment spreadsheet( Review comments_ArtifactName_draft1.xls )
- Prepping for the Sept WGM Meeting
- Present what needs to be done for a RASCI chart (which will be a Sept WGM agenda item) (Haddorff)
- SD WG Tuesday Q3 session in San Diego (CDA R3 and SAIF) – invite SAIF AP people to attend that, if interested.
- Recurring Agenda Items
- New Agenda items for San Diego Sept. WGM – Wednesday Q4: 20110914_SAIF_AP_Meeting
- Add the following to the Agenda: SAIF and Sound White paper???
- Pilot Coordination updates (Rick Haddorff)
- Any new Coordination items? (Team)
- Project Schedule progress (Rick Haddorff)
- New Agenda items for San Diego Sept. WGM – Wednesday Q4: 20110914_SAIF_AP_Meeting
- Action item review (see below)
- Next steps
- 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:
Doodle Poll Results: To include the EHR S FM project #551 within the SAIF AP initiative
Vote: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 0 Abstain: 0
SAIF AP Logo – Doodle Poll Results
- To summarize the comments:
- It seems to be premature; not thrilled with the submitted logos.
- The proposed logos were generally not what people expected.
- Austin’s goal for the logo was to brand the deliverables that come out of SAIF.
- Perhaps pushing it this early is premature.
- Austin is happy to put this to bed for the time being.
- All others agreed. Not mission critical at this point. We can revisit this at a later date.
Adoption Process Document - MnM response that a process may not need a Project Scope Statement
- 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?
- 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).
- The owners of the process, can determine if a PSS is needed.
- 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.
Discuss July 27 and Aug 3rd meetings
Cancel both meetings
September WGM Agenda in San Diego
- Work on the RASCI charts for the sub projects
- Update from the SD WGs Tuesday Q3 session discussion of CDA R3 and SAIF (Kreisler)
Gforge Accounts can be requested via:
http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd
Adjourned 10:45 AM Eastern Time