20081120 arb minutes
November 20, 2008
|Curry, Jane||ArB||Yes||Health Information Strategiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Grieve, Grahame||ArB||No||Kestral Computingemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||ArB||Yes||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||ArB||No||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Mead, Charlie||ArB||Yes||Booz Allen Hamiltonfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Parker, Ron||ArB||No||CA Infowayemail@example.com|
|Quinn, John||ArB||No||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||ArB||No||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Walker, Mead||ArB||Yes||Health Data and Interoperabilityfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Yongjian, Bao||ArB||Yes||GE Healthcareemail@example.com|
|Bear, Yogi(template)||Guest||No||US Dept. Interior, National Park Servicefirstname.lastname@example.org|
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 3:00pm U.S Eastern time by John Koisch with Tony Julian as scribe.
Ron Parker asked to be excused due to day-job constraints.
Discussion of Next Steps
- The ArB feels like it has defined the broad groups of work that needs to be undertaken to implement the SAEAF within HL7.
- We also feel like there are definite next steps, such as fleshing out the impacts and the instantiation of alpha projects
- However, we don’t feel that the ArB can make more recommendations until these exemplar impacts are assessed and we gain some understanding as to how strategy will be affected by the SAEAF
- For example, we can suggest more very concrete organizational restructurings but hesitate to do so without more detail
CM: I discussed this with the TSC. They understood and are in favor of going forward. The TSC is aware of the fact that there are significant impacts. There are two projects going forward with this approach. We are at a dead stop until the TSC defines who will take charge at what point.
JK: One of the things that is interesting is that the TSC has spent a lot of time communicating with us. All of the HL7 discussions with HITSP have taken shape and are fostering meaningful discussions. We need to understand what they want. I did make liberal use of our Mantra:
JC: It is understood that there may be panic for any change.
JK: There is little we can do at this point. We can collect the concrete stuff for education. The SAEAF is in CM’s hands. The Behavioral Framework is being worked on by John, Alan Honey and others. I don’t know what shape the January meeting will take.
CM: Tony: Can you get the peer review comments posted to the wiki after I finish with them?
JC: if we are doing a teleconference we need to announce it sooner rather than later. They will read in motivations if we do or don’t or don’t say anything. Silence is not equivalent to “No News”.
JK: I am going to continue to try to talk to CM and Charlie McKay.
CM: Say to the TSC you have to send out an e-mail saying there is or is not a conference call. I don’t think a report to the co-chairs is sufficient. They are going to want to drill into architecture details. That is still under TSC leadership. If that does not work, tell the TSC that we promised a meeting, but are waiting for them.
JK: I wanted to make sure that the TSC understands that they are the limiting factor.
CM: We don’t want to send out a meeting overstepping the TSC.
JK: By COB Monday after the TSC meeting, it will be or not. CM and I will join the TSC meeting on Monday.
JC: A re-draft of the SAEAF document and the corresponding decision about whether we draw the Behavioral Framework into it: I would vote to pull the BF into the SAEAF. Need a cross-reference between the two.
JK: I thought the decision was made.
JC: I thought the decision was on your slide.
JK: I think it should be in.
CM: I agree that it should be in SAEAF to avoid consistency problems.
JC: We need to look long term at the publication structure.
CM: Conformance, Compliance, governance need to be done also. Our next hurdle is SAEAF for Orlando, pulling in the Behavioral Framework.
JC: Publication capabilities are on the hook – we are at the limit of our tools to meet the needs of the membership. We expect to be evaluating alternative recommendations for publishing. That is the way we have to go.
JK: Do you mean ballot publication?
JC: The ballot is where we put methodology as well as standards.
JK: The issue is all publications.
JC: Everything we do now needs to be thought of from a content management standpoint. From that point of view it will not be too soon if we address these issues immediately/
JK: There is TSC urgency as well as ARB urgency.
JC: If we can minimize the disruption we will be successful. It sounds to me that we should cut this call short, assume there will be conversation at the TSC meeting.
JK: I will send out a note.
TJ: We need to set the date. I have already blocked Dec 2 and 3 as we originally discussed, but if it changes, my calendar is rapidly filling up.
CM: We will remind the TSC.
Motion to adjourn at 3:31pm Jane C /Tony JTony 20:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)