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

20181116 PLA call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas
Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Program

HL7 PLA Call Minutes

Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371,

Date: 2017-11-16
Time: 11:30 AM
Facilitator Mary Kay/ Austin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
Jean Duteau,
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler,
x Mary Kay McDaniel
x Brian Pech
Wayne Kubick
John Roberts
Andy Stechishin
no quorum definition


Agenda review

  • Notes of 20171102_PLA_call review
  • Discussion
    • Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away
    • Catch-all product family
    • Where do roles of a management group reside when there is a lack of a management group
    • Management group health metrics
  • notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review.
    • Level of granularity
    • Identify which pieces are orphaned, and the political elements to be surfaced.
    • Positioning cross-product family artifacts (standards naming)
  • BAM-lite feedback and review
    • Governance on V2.x (v2.9 substantive changes)
    • develop form to request establishing a Product Family


Agenda review

  • Notes of 20181102_PLA_call review
  • Discussion
    • Who would be responsible for steering division responsibilities if they went away
      • The correct question is defining separate roles/clarifying responsibilites for steering divisions vs. management groups. Management groups are largely framed by product families, while SDs are focused across the HL7 community. Discussion over approval flow…most things are approved by management groups before steering divisions, although they can technically be done in parallel.
      • Are there places we can streamline what we’re doing? SD approval can take a month or more due to slow e-votes. Could just give SDs a time period in which they can provide feedback or choose to raise a red flag rather than have an up/down vote. Discussion over who would be responsible for solving any issues. Will be most reasonable to enact this kind of thing once we are firmly using Confluence for PSS review. Will make issues more visible to all and enables WGs to be able to see all the PSSs, not just the ones in their SD.
      • Calvin suggests that US Realm and MGs operate the same way – comments collected and submitted to TSC for review? Cosponsors and WGs should have a formal vote. Right now management groups don’t have a direct vote on the TSC, while steering divisions do – therefore they have no direct influence on the comments they post on the PSS at the TSC level. Issues noted would have to be minuted, so WGs who don’t meet other than at WGMs would have a challenge. This could actually bog TSC down in project reviews.
      • What if US Realm, WGs, and SDs comment, and MGs resolve the issues? Need to figure out where the decision is critical enough that it needs a vote vs. a review. Management group does have a review requirement in certain cases. Probably need to collect empirical evidence using the new process before we can really get a handle on this. One known bottleneck is the SD votes, however. Could insist on a two week rule for SD votes, and if they can’t meet it, they have to decrease their quorum requirements. If you don’t vote in the two week period, you’d be counted as an abstention – but should still count as a non-vote in WG health. Could also have the SD WGs vote and other WGs allowed to comment at the same time.
        • After WGM: Continued discussion on alternatives to streamline SD votes
    • Catch-all product family
      • Carry forward
    • Management group health metrics
      • Carry forward

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved