ITI Planning - 20180821: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
JohnMoehrke (talk | contribs)
JohnMoehrke (talk | contribs)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 31: Line 31:


==Minutes==
==Minutes==
 
* John chaired
 
* Attendance: John, Dan, Charles, Joe, Luke, Oliver, Sylve, Vassil, Lisa, and Elliot
* Retrospective
* Agenda review
** Good
** comment to focus on outreach
*** Hero came to rescue in two cases
* Reminder to vote
*** Editors brought in SME to help out with the technical details and esoteric need
* Celebrate release of new work items
*** succeeded to publish work items within cycle
** Retrospective
** Bad
*** Good
*** needed hero -- too much unanticipated turnover of people
**** Hero came to rescue in two cases
*** Some work items reset -- difficult questions were deferred but that tended to be problem
**** Editors brought in SME to help out with the technical details and esoteric need
**** reset often, and late
**** succeeded to publish work items within cycle
*** too little improvement of text happened between face-to-face
*** Bad
*** too little research was done between Planning acceptance (october -> november)
**** needed hero -- too much unanticipated turnover of people
*** expertise needed to review work items was very deep and specialized
**** Some work items reset -- difficult questions were deferred but that tended to be problem
*** face-to-face scheduled personal holiday
***** reset often, and late
*** Oslo meeting decisions were not well (Effectively) published
**** too little improvement of text happened between face-to-face
** Improvements
**** too little research was done between Planning acceptance (october -> november)
*** Editors should be required to have been an active committee member for at-least a year
**** expertise needed to review work items was very deep and specialized
*** more use of strawman solutioning
**** face-to-face scheduled personal holiday
*** more between face-to-face tcon work
**** Oslo meeting decisions were not well (Effectively) published
*** project proposal needs to include a realistic project plan
*** Improvements
*** primary and secondary editors should be assigned
**** Editors should be required to have been an active committee member for at-least a year
*** Is there a way to reset the plan midway when scope changes?
**** more use of strawman solutioning
**** more between face-to-face tcon work
**** project proposal needs to include a realistic project plan
**** primary and secondary editors should be assigned
**** Is there a way to reset the plan midway when scope changes?
** News articles
*** John to provide blog as possible news article on Metadata handbook
*** Charles to write raw material for an AS4 article -- DEADLINE September 10
* Status of new proposals
** None yet received
** Lisa asks for process
*** see https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2018/08/open-call-for-ihe-work-item-proposals.html
* Webinar
** Daniel is giving an ITI overview on the 29th
*** Slides should be reviewed next week
** John agrees to split up the xds-on-fhir slide deck into three
*** ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/ITI_EducationalMaterials/CurrentPublished/XDSonFHIR-MHD+mXDE+QEDm-20180615.pptx
*** Document Sharing overview
*** MHD
*** mXDE (MHD + QEDm)
** Charles agrees to create an AS4 webinar (10 minutes)
*** September 10 or 11 at 10am central time
** ACTION: John to get these webinars planned
* FHIR Release 4
** ACTION: John to write up proposal for new work to align early in the year
* Discussion of new governance cycle proposal

Latest revision as of 13:00, 21 August 2018

back ITI Planning Committee 2017/2018 Meetings

Location

To join this meeting

Time 11:00 am - 12:30 pm Monthly on the third Tuesday

Go to https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=me852e7ebefb69e608eea3547ddceeb94

Agenda

Minutes

  • John chaired
  • Attendance: John, Dan, Charles, Joe, Luke, Oliver, Sylve, Vassil, Lisa, and Elliot
  • Agenda review
    • comment to focus on outreach
  • Reminder to vote
  • Celebrate release of new work items
    • Retrospective
      • Good
        • Hero came to rescue in two cases
        • Editors brought in SME to help out with the technical details and esoteric need
        • succeeded to publish work items within cycle
      • Bad
        • needed hero -- too much unanticipated turnover of people
        • Some work items reset -- difficult questions were deferred but that tended to be problem
          • reset often, and late
        • too little improvement of text happened between face-to-face
        • too little research was done between Planning acceptance (october -> november)
        • expertise needed to review work items was very deep and specialized
        • face-to-face scheduled personal holiday
        • Oslo meeting decisions were not well (Effectively) published
      • Improvements
        • Editors should be required to have been an active committee member for at-least a year
        • more use of strawman solutioning
        • more between face-to-face tcon work
        • project proposal needs to include a realistic project plan
        • primary and secondary editors should be assigned
        • Is there a way to reset the plan midway when scope changes?
    • News articles
      • John to provide blog as possible news article on Metadata handbook
      • Charles to write raw material for an AS4 article -- DEADLINE September 10
  • Status of new proposals
  • Webinar
  • FHIR Release 4
    • ACTION: John to write up proposal for new work to align early in the year
  • Discussion of new governance cycle proposal