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

Difference between revisions of "20110127 arb telcon"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
Ron Parker: My thoughts: From a program perspective the goal is that based around the OO composite orders project we will test and co-evolve an implementation guide.  Includes framing of deliverables.  There will be other projects, with interdependencies to be managed.  MnM will have a role in mapping/extending MDF/HDF, in concert with the PS effort.  ASrB role is a support mechanism, not own the process, but make ourselves accessible to the groups.
 
Ron Parker: My thoughts: From a program perspective the goal is that based around the OO composite orders project we will test and co-evolve an implementation guide.  Includes framing of deliverables.  There will be other projects, with interdependencies to be managed.  MnM will have a role in mapping/extending MDF/HDF, in concert with the PS effort.  ASrB role is a support mechanism, not own the process, but make ourselves accessible to the groups.
 +
 +
Ron Parker: It is not clear who is driving.
 +
# this is not an Arb project
 +
# we do expect other WG's to participate
 +
# we do expect a ballot out of OO
 +
 +
Ron Parker: Discussed the precepts that will govern an IG.  Each precept is something which is governed, whether artifact, process, or other.  What are the dependencies?  Who are the people?
 +
 +
Jane Curry: Everyone agrees that this structure is the basis for Governance.
 +
 +
Ron Parker: The process for moving through balloting.  We need methodology for forming and building artifacts, others deterine the shape of the artifact.  This is a good outline, we may not do it all, but tht principle is that each thing that needs to be governed in the IG, we answer these questions.  The problem is that someone manages the participation.  It could be we get PS to drive.  We need to find the group that has the most at stake, who can describe it from end-to-end.  There are other working groups who are responsible for meeting the needs of the group.  Any insight, natural home for this?  Is PS the appropriate home, and what do we need to do to set up the governance.

Revision as of 21:23, 27 January 2011

CTO at 3:05pm Present:Zoran, Andy, Rick Haddorff, lynn Laskso, Jane Curry, Tony Julian, Ron Parker Project Services: I would like to touch base with ArB on a few issues from Project Services:

1. Hand off SAIF IG project and Project Scope Statement 2. Gforge tracker 1681 regarding a cookbook process to drive adoption 3. Program management within HL7 Precepts - governable artifact

  • Define the category of the concept

Name each Precept , then for each precept:

  1. Define Objectives
    1. Standards
    2. Policies,
    3. Guidelines,
    4. Dependencies
  2. People
    1. Making decisions in accordance to and within the constraints sripulated by Precepts
  3. Processes
    1. Coordinate decision-making activities
    2. Provide the means and opportunities to control decisions, enforce policies, and take corrective action.
  4. Metrics
    1. Measure Compliance with Precepts
    2. Provide visibility into the progress and effectiveness of the governance system


SAIFIG Ron Parker: Sensitivity concerning the IG - the issue is that ths SAIFIG is not perceived that the SAIF and SOUND in not the ONLY IG. The challenge is who is going to run what?

Jane Curry: When the TSC met the ArB members as liasons are critical into the groups, and they should be tracked.

Ron Parker: My thoughts: From a program perspective the goal is that based around the OO composite orders project we will test and co-evolve an implementation guide. Includes framing of deliverables. There will be other projects, with interdependencies to be managed. MnM will have a role in mapping/extending MDF/HDF, in concert with the PS effort. ASrB role is a support mechanism, not own the process, but make ourselves accessible to the groups.

Ron Parker: It is not clear who is driving.

  1. this is not an Arb project
  2. we do expect other WG's to participate
  3. we do expect a ballot out of OO

Ron Parker: Discussed the precepts that will govern an IG. Each precept is something which is governed, whether artifact, process, or other. What are the dependencies? Who are the people?

Jane Curry: Everyone agrees that this structure is the basis for Governance.

Ron Parker: The process for moving through balloting. We need methodology for forming and building artifacts, others deterine the shape of the artifact. This is a good outline, we may not do it all, but tht principle is that each thing that needs to be governed in the IG, we answer these questions. The problem is that someone manages the participation. It could be we get PS to drive. We need to find the group that has the most at stake, who can describe it from end-to-end. There are other working groups who are responsible for meeting the needs of the group. Any insight, natural home for this? Is PS the appropriate home, and what do we need to do to set up the governance.