Difference between revisions of "20091217 arb minutes"
m |
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
== Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan. == | == Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan. == | ||
| − | + | Ron Parker: Patrick got us on the agenda WED Q2 in Phoenix. It will take some time to get it posted. Karen expects that we will be able to test before making the link public. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Marc Koehn would like the preview available to the alpha. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Karen: Is it possible to produce an HTML rendering? | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: We can do a zip html version into subversion. | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: Yes. That would work for the #2. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Very good - provide for electronic services, and have dialog. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: We dont need full representation of each group. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: We have to make sure issues are captured and shared. | |
| − | + | Patrick Loyd: Agreed. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Eddie is working on comparison of tools and costing, with evaluation ready early next week. NCI is aquiring tools a tht same time - make sure we are congruent with NCI choices, to leverage effort. | |
== Review of the Behavioral Framework. == | == Review of the Behavioral Framework. == | ||
| − | + | Patrick Loyd: Grahame produced a framing document. John Koisch added his comments. Patrick and Austin met collated, and sumarized. Produced outputs to Grahame and John, who just met. John, Grahame, Patrick, Austin have work. We will have prime form for WGM to do foundation. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Coordinating with charlie | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Patrick talked about OO topic. Charlie and I have updated a bunch of stuff, Charlie will provide final edit. Will provide to ArB over the break. Vote on it second week of january, to take back to HL7. It will be a good framework. Still waiting for Charlie. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Charlie is finalizing ECCF, and will work on BF today and tomorrow. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Acton items? what are our expectations for the WGM. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Governance is not to Karen - she is polishing ECCF and the DITA map for BF. I have a draft of the structure. I have to do major restructuring. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Will spend a fair amount of time with OO to validate the V3 messages, as well as service specifications. The WED afternoon discussion may have BF implications. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: John you are doing tutorial? | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Thursday afternoon Q3, Q4. | |
| − | + | Tony Julian: ArB meets Thursday Q3, Q4. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Look for me in the bar :-); | |
== Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date. == | == Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date. == | ||
| − | + | Karen Smith: Edited ECCF documents and updated the artwork. I want to add the intro to the Data page, and then chapter 6 right now. That is where I am at. After that, then I will start adding ECCF information with the DITA document. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Any major challenges? | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: A lot. I have to change a lot of the DITA. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Any assistance needed let us know. | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: OK, I will. Thanks for offering to help. | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: One more thing - I would like a long-term goal. I would like to see the artwork conform to SVG format because the message looks more sharp than the other artwork for what we are doing. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Do we need to do the conversion? | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: My husband is working with that. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Better reproduction. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: What is SVG? | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: SVG is a traditional factor art format. | |
| − | + | Patrick Loyd: Scalable Vector Graphics | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Presents better in different resolutions. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Do you do a save-as? | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Dont convert JPG to svg, use BMP | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: What output should I use? | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Good question. | |
| − | + | Grahame Grieve: Save as EMF Enhanced Metafile | |
| − | + | Patrick Loyd: Visio will as well. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Anything else for us? | |
| − | + | Karen Smith: No. | |
== Review of ARB Membership Qualifications == | == Review of ARB Membership Qualifications == | ||
Review of document: | Review of document: | ||
| − | + | Ron Parker: Applogize for the formatting. (displayed the comments) | |
| − | + | Abdul Malik-Shakir: number of committees appointed by the Board, ArB being one of them. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Suggestion that Chair/Vice-chair be from different organizations. We should describe the merits of what we are trying to achieve in terms of balance. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: I am sensitive to the fact that I have not come up through the organization. Chair responsibility is to moderate, and get the members to provide the things needed. | |
| − | + | Abdul Malik-Shakir: Not all that concerned. It could create some challenges as people change organizations. Not an issue for me. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Agree with AMS, for a different reason. I am not sure we should take the leadeship where we can find it, whether small or big organizations. Force the CTO to see where the ideas are coming from. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Speak to the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. Only concern I have is that we expect the chairs to do the preponderance of the work - chairs should not be highly vested in the work. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Positive - Membership of ArB as a whole is to provide perspectives of the golbal ineroperability community over a range of roles and participation. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Charlie suggested a rotating appointment cycle, so we dont dump the whole thing. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Current turn-over was for ability to serve - can be replace by someone else if TSC/CTO agree. We need to understand the terms. i would not like to see it less than one year. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Should not sumarily dump and add resources. Declaration in advance, and declare renewals that allows people to offer, as well as resign 0- and allows the gorups to take into consideration. Should be declaration of intent. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: The reason a lot of these rules are is to avoid the concensus driven aspect - there is a feeling that you could not drive this through concensus. i would love to see some sort of validation/evaluation by TSC. How may initiatives has the ArB put through? | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: CTO may appoint, but accountability is to the TSC. Asking for TSC to evaluate and assert to the CTO. Is the TSC opinion to be binding? | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Do'nt know the best way to achieve - just that it should be evalutate. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Will provide evaluation criteria for re-appointment. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Renewed terms NEED/NEED NOT reqire TSC approval - defer to the TSC. | |
| − | + | Abdul Malik-Shakir: Term should be two years, instead of one. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Agree. | |
| − | + | Dale Nelson: Agree, anyone coming in new is six months to figure out what is being done. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: The 'r' in ArB is review - to train each other. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Will change language with track changes, and circulate. John made it clear hw would like it to be resolved. I will send around in short order, and ask for replies on the listserv. If we have majority assent, I will take to TSC next monday. | |
| − | + | Grahame Grieve: IF we wont be able to meet the requirement? | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Will fix 'B', and provide language as to balance from the various perspectives. Architects that dont knwo HL7 in a leaderstip roel would be a problem. | |
| − | + | Abdul Malik-Shakir: Essential that the chairs have BOTH requirements. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Interoperability at a major level may be more than intra-enterprise - should be working in multi-orgaizational interoperability community we are targeting. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: is that limiting? | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Take someone from another industry who does not know HL7, that perspective would be valuable over a single organizational architecture. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Problem I have is with CTO's appointment - that the TSC would ensure that the CTO does not appoint anyone who did not meet the qualifications. Resonable expectation on part of TSC. | |
| − | + | Abdul Malik-Shakir: Criteria should not be too stringent, because the future direction of HL7 is unknown. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: one or both of criteria at the discretion of the CTO. The other qualifications are capacity to serve. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: It is interesting to conceive of ArB to moving to governance instead of project structure. There is governance screaming to be dealt with, as well as projects, which HL7 nees to manage. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: Did we not say that TSC did governance, and we advised. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: There is a perception in the community that ArB will provide governance. The gulf needs to be filled. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: There are things that will fall to the ArB with a degree of goevenance that will be backed up by the TSC. | |
| − | + | Jane Curry: organizational changes, or responsibility of work-groups would be TSC. Architectural artifacts and alignment should be approved at the ArB level. | |
| − | + | Ron Parker: Given challenge from down under, is there advice on how to take to TSC on monday? | |
| − | |||
Proxy votes? | Proxy votes? | ||
| − | + | Ron Parker: Grahame, Andy I can turn it around in the next hour. | |
| − | + | John Koisch: Vote by e-mail. | |
| + | |||
| + | == Other business and planning for next meeting == | ||
| − | + | Agreed: Thursday of next week is Christmas Eve, so next call will be January 7, 2010. | |
== Adjournment == | == Adjournment == | ||
| + | The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm U. S. Eastern | ||
Revision as of 00:06, 18 December 2009
Architecture Review Board
December 17, 2009
Contents
- 1 Attendance
- 2 Agenda
- 3 Call to Order
- 4 Approval of Agenda
- 5 Approval of Minutes
- 6 Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan.
- 7 Review of the Behavioral Framework.
- 8 Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date.
- 9 Review of ARB Membership Qualifications
- 10 Other business and planning for next meeting
- 11 Adjournment
Attendance
| Name | Present | With | Affiliation | E-mail address |
| Aneja, Paul | ? | Guest | ||
| Bond, Andy | Yes | ArB | ||
| Curry, Jane | Yes | ArB | Health Information Strategies | janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com |
| Grieve, Grahame | ? | ArB | Kestral Computing | grahame@kestral.com.au |
| Hufnagle, Steve | ? | Guest | ||
| Julian, Tony | Yes | ArB | Mayo Clinic | ajulian@mayo.edu |
| Koehn, Marc | ? | Guest | ||
| Koisch, John | Yes | ArB | NCI | koisch_john@bah.com |
| Loyd, Patrick | Yes | ARB | Gordon point Informatics LTD. | patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com |
| Lynch, Cecil | ? | ArB | ontoreason LLC | clynch@ontoreason.com |
| Mead, Charlie | ? | ArB | Booz Allen Hamilton | charlie.mead@booz.com |
| Nelson, Dale | ? | Arb | II4SM | dale@zed-logic.com |
| Ocasio, Wendell | ? | ArB | Agilex Technologies | wendell.ocasio@agilex.com |
| Parker, Ron | yes | ArB | CA Infoway | rparker@eastlink.ca |
| Peres, Greg | ? | Guest | ||
| Platt, Joe | ? | Guest | Ekagra Software Technologies | jplatt@ekagrasoft.com |
| Quinn, John | ? | ArB | Health Level Seven, Inc. | jquinn@HL7.org |
| Robertson, Scott | Yes | Guest | Kaiser Permanente | scott.m.robertson@kp.org |
| Shakir, Abdul-Malik | Yes | ArB | Shakir Consulting | ShakirConsulting@cs.com |
| Smith, Karen | Yes | Guest | Technical Editor | karen@smithspot.com |
| Thompson, Cliff | Yes | Guest | OntoSolutions LLC | cliff@ontosolutions.com |
| VanArsdall, Eddie | ? | Guest |
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes December 10, 2009 Minutes
- Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan.
- Review of the Behavioral Framework.
- Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date.
- Review of ARB Membership Qualifications
- Other business and planning for next meeting
- Adjournment
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM U.S. Eastern by vice-chair Ron Parker with Tony Julian as scribe.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda for the meeting was approved by affirmation.
Approval of Minutes
MMS to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2009 Minutes <Tony/Jane> <9,0,0>
Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan.
Ron Parker: Patrick got us on the agenda WED Q2 in Phoenix. It will take some time to get it posted. Karen expects that we will be able to test before making the link public.
Jane Curry: Marc Koehn would like the preview available to the alpha.
Ron Parker: Karen: Is it possible to produce an HTML rendering?
Jane Curry: We can do a zip html version into subversion.
Karen Smith: Yes. That would work for the #2.
Ron Parker: Very good - provide for electronic services, and have dialog.
Ron Parker: We dont need full representation of each group.
Jane Curry: We have to make sure issues are captured and shared.
Patrick Loyd: Agreed.
Jane Curry: Eddie is working on comparison of tools and costing, with evaluation ready early next week. NCI is aquiring tools a tht same time - make sure we are congruent with NCI choices, to leverage effort.
Review of the Behavioral Framework.
Patrick Loyd: Grahame produced a framing document. John Koisch added his comments. Patrick and Austin met collated, and sumarized. Produced outputs to Grahame and John, who just met. John, Grahame, Patrick, Austin have work. We will have prime form for WGM to do foundation.
Jane Curry: Coordinating with charlie
John Koisch: Patrick talked about OO topic. Charlie and I have updated a bunch of stuff, Charlie will provide final edit. Will provide to ArB over the break. Vote on it second week of january, to take back to HL7. It will be a good framework. Still waiting for Charlie.
Jane Curry: Charlie is finalizing ECCF, and will work on BF today and tomorrow.
Ron Parker: Acton items? what are our expectations for the WGM.
Jane Curry: Governance is not to Karen - she is polishing ECCF and the DITA map for BF. I have a draft of the structure. I have to do major restructuring.
John Koisch: Will spend a fair amount of time with OO to validate the V3 messages, as well as service specifications. The WED afternoon discussion may have BF implications.
Ron Parker: John you are doing tutorial?
John Koisch: Thursday afternoon Q3, Q4.
Tony Julian: ArB meets Thursday Q3, Q4.
John Koisch: Look for me in the bar :-);
Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date.
Karen Smith: Edited ECCF documents and updated the artwork. I want to add the intro to the Data page, and then chapter 6 right now. That is where I am at. After that, then I will start adding ECCF information with the DITA document.
Ron Parker: Any major challenges?
Karen Smith: A lot. I have to change a lot of the DITA.
Ron Parker: Any assistance needed let us know.
Karen Smith: OK, I will. Thanks for offering to help.
Karen Smith: One more thing - I would like a long-term goal. I would like to see the artwork conform to SVG format because the message looks more sharp than the other artwork for what we are doing.
Ron Parker: Do we need to do the conversion?
Karen Smith: My husband is working with that.
Ron Parker: Better reproduction.
Jane Curry: What is SVG?
Karen Smith: SVG is a traditional factor art format.
Patrick Loyd: Scalable Vector Graphics
Ron Parker: Presents better in different resolutions.
Jane Curry: Do you do a save-as?
Ron Parker: Dont convert JPG to svg, use BMP
Jane Curry: What output should I use?
Ron Parker: Good question.
Grahame Grieve: Save as EMF Enhanced Metafile
Patrick Loyd: Visio will as well.
Ron Parker: Anything else for us?
Karen Smith: No.
Review of ARB Membership Qualifications
Review of document: Ron Parker: Applogize for the formatting. (displayed the comments)
Abdul Malik-Shakir: number of committees appointed by the Board, ArB being one of them.
Ron Parker: Suggestion that Chair/Vice-chair be from different organizations. We should describe the merits of what we are trying to achieve in terms of balance.
Ron Parker: I am sensitive to the fact that I have not come up through the organization. Chair responsibility is to moderate, and get the members to provide the things needed.
Abdul Malik-Shakir: Not all that concerned. It could create some challenges as people change organizations. Not an issue for me.
John Koisch: Agree with AMS, for a different reason. I am not sure we should take the leadeship where we can find it, whether small or big organizations. Force the CTO to see where the ideas are coming from.
Ron Parker: Speak to the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. Only concern I have is that we expect the chairs to do the preponderance of the work - chairs should not be highly vested in the work.
Jane Curry: Positive - Membership of ArB as a whole is to provide perspectives of the golbal ineroperability community over a range of roles and participation.
Ron Parker: Charlie suggested a rotating appointment cycle, so we dont dump the whole thing.
Jane Curry: Current turn-over was for ability to serve - can be replace by someone else if TSC/CTO agree. We need to understand the terms. i would not like to see it less than one year.
Ron Parker: Should not sumarily dump and add resources. Declaration in advance, and declare renewals that allows people to offer, as well as resign 0- and allows the gorups to take into consideration. Should be declaration of intent.
John Koisch: The reason a lot of these rules are is to avoid the concensus driven aspect - there is a feeling that you could not drive this through concensus. i would love to see some sort of validation/evaluation by TSC. How may initiatives has the ArB put through?
Ron Parker: CTO may appoint, but accountability is to the TSC. Asking for TSC to evaluate and assert to the CTO. Is the TSC opinion to be binding?
John Koisch: Do'nt know the best way to achieve - just that it should be evalutate.
Ron Parker: Will provide evaluation criteria for re-appointment.
Ron Parker: Renewed terms NEED/NEED NOT reqire TSC approval - defer to the TSC.
Abdul Malik-Shakir: Term should be two years, instead of one.
Ron Parker: Agree.
Dale Nelson: Agree, anyone coming in new is six months to figure out what is being done.
John Koisch: The 'r' in ArB is review - to train each other.
Ron Parker: Will change language with track changes, and circulate. John made it clear hw would like it to be resolved. I will send around in short order, and ask for replies on the listserv. If we have majority assent, I will take to TSC next monday.
Grahame Grieve: IF we wont be able to meet the requirement?
Ron Parker: Will fix 'B', and provide language as to balance from the various perspectives. Architects that dont knwo HL7 in a leaderstip roel would be a problem.
Abdul Malik-Shakir: Essential that the chairs have BOTH requirements.
Jane Curry: Interoperability at a major level may be more than intra-enterprise - should be working in multi-orgaizational interoperability community we are targeting.
Ron Parker: is that limiting?
Jane Curry: Take someone from another industry who does not know HL7, that perspective would be valuable over a single organizational architecture.
Ron Parker: Problem I have is with CTO's appointment - that the TSC would ensure that the CTO does not appoint anyone who did not meet the qualifications. Resonable expectation on part of TSC.
Abdul Malik-Shakir: Criteria should not be too stringent, because the future direction of HL7 is unknown.
Ron Parker: one or both of criteria at the discretion of the CTO. The other qualifications are capacity to serve.
John Koisch: It is interesting to conceive of ArB to moving to governance instead of project structure. There is governance screaming to be dealt with, as well as projects, which HL7 nees to manage.
Jane Curry: Did we not say that TSC did governance, and we advised.
John Koisch: There is a perception in the community that ArB will provide governance. The gulf needs to be filled.
Ron Parker: There are things that will fall to the ArB with a degree of goevenance that will be backed up by the TSC.
Jane Curry: organizational changes, or responsibility of work-groups would be TSC. Architectural artifacts and alignment should be approved at the ArB level.
Ron Parker: Given challenge from down under, is there advice on how to take to TSC on monday?
Proxy votes?
Ron Parker: Grahame, Andy I can turn it around in the next hour.
John Koisch: Vote by e-mail.
Other business and planning for next meeting
Agreed: Thursday of next week is Christmas Eve, so next call will be January 7, 2010.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm U. S. Eastern
