2007 - 08 - 15 Interim Tracking PIC Issues

Process Improvement Cmt.
Interim Tracking
Part of larger project

Surface Added to list of items to review. and already being
to Board Tracking # Date submitted Submitter Firm e-mail Justification Description Attachment Status Disposition Memo Maps to: Need more info Forward to: Expect response no later than: addressed Comments
During one of the recent WGMs, a non-active

HL7 showed up during some committee
meetings and frustrated the process by
incessant arguing. This caused the CQ co-
chairs to re-examine the rules when it comes
to committee meetings. The FM committee
have indicated that they have similar What is the definition of a
20050422-001 22-Apr-05 Rene Spronk rene.spronk@ringholm.com questions. Pend committee member
Need new ideas on how to encourage best

practices, one suggestion is to find a way to
Delta Dental
share new ideas coming out of the TCs and
Plans
20070525-001 25-May-07 Sheila Franks Association sfrank@deltadental.com SIGs N Received Best Practices
The Committee Disbanding Process should be

20070727-001 27-Jul-07 PIC added to the Co-chair Handbook. N Received Handbook
July 27, 2007 - Freida Hall

has provided supporting
documents which will be
There needs to be a DMP template review used as a strarting point for
process in place. Perhaps an annual review the review. This effort has
would insure the document is kept up to date been postponed until the end
20070727-002 27-Jul-07 PIC with the business. N Deferred of the year. DMP
Adding a section to the handbook that

addrresses or points to available information
20070727-003 27-Jul-07 PIC about DSTU. N Received Handbook
The International Mentoring Committee

(IMC) would like PIC to propose an extra
screen/list of questions for first time attendees
to fill out as they register. This would help
identify why people are attending the meeting,
and permit some mentoring prior to their
arrival if necessary. From the PIC point of
view, I thought of the company that sent a
number of people to training and thought they
would all be certified in one week’s time.
From the IMC point of view, they could
Delta Dental identify why new international attendees are
Sheila Franks / Plans coming and target their own mentoring
20070815-001 15-Aug-07 IMC Association sfrank@deltadental.com accordingly. N Received
05/18/2020 13:23:49 Page 1 of 79

Surface to Tracking # Date Submitter Firm e-mail Justification
Board submitted
No 20020110-001 10-Jan-03 List
Liora The Word

No 20021003-001 3-Oct-02 Alschuler Electric liora@the-word-electric.com
No 20021118-001 18-Nov-02 Michael Siemens michael.cassidy@siemens.com
Cassidy
Yes 20021212-001 12-Dec-02 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller

@siemen
s.com
No 20030108-001 8-Jan-03 Joann Larson Kaiser joann.larson@kp.org
Yes 20030114-001 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

chairman
20030114-002 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

chairman
20030114-003 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

chairman
No 20030124-001 24-Jan-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com

20030124-002 24-Jan-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com
No 20030224-001 24-Feb-03 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller

@siemen
s.com
No 20030224-002 24-Feb-03 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov
Yes 20030311-001 11-Mar-03 Sandy Boyer slboyer@attglobal.net
No 20030429-001 29-Apr-03 Greg Seppala gregg.seppala@med.va.gov

No 20030502-001 2-May-03 Rosemary
(HL7
Australia)
No 20030502-002 2-May-03 PIC
No 20030521-001 21-May-03 Dr. Martin Siemens mkfrad@aol.com

Kernberg
No 20030521-002 21-May-03 Dr. Martin UC mkfrad@aol.com

Kernberg
No 20030521-003 21-May-03 Dr. Martin UC mkfrad@aol.com

Kernberg
Yes 20030521-004 21-May-03 Dr. Martin mkfrad@aol.com

Kernberg
20030906-001 6-Sep-03 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

20030904-001 4-Sep-03 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com
20030908-001 8-Sep-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com
20030909-001 9-Sep-03 Helen Stevens helen.stevens@gpinformatics.com
20030910-001 10-Sep-03 Ken Rubin VHA ken.rubin@med.va.gov
20030910-002 10-Sep-03 Abdul-Malik Shakir abdulmalik@shakirconsulting.com

Shakir Consulting
20031202-001 2-Dec-03 Joan Miler Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com
20031215-001 15-Dec-03 Joann Larson Kaiser joann.larson@kp.org
20031215-002 15-Dec-03 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com

20040121-001 21-Jan-04 Dick Harding Queensland Dick_Harding@health.qld.gov.au

Health

Health

Health
20040121-004 21-Jan-04 Gavin Tong CIHI GTong@c

ihi.ca
Health

Health
V3 Pilots lead
to V3
proposals and
a point of
storage and
unique
HL7 proposal ID is
20040121-007 21-Jan-04 Rene Spronk Netherlands rene.spronk@ringholm.com
very useful.
20040122-001 22-Jan-04 John Ritter Speech speechpi@libcom.com
SpeechPi@Li Products, Inc.
bcom.com
412.372.5783
20040310-001 11-Mar-04 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com
20040312-001 12-Mar-04 Michael Siemens michael.cassidy@siemens.com

Cassidy
20040503-001 03-May-04 Harry jtcase@ucdavis.edu

Solomon
20040503-002 03-May-04 Jim Case American jtcase@ucdavis.edu

Veterinary
Medical
Association
20040504-001 05-May-04 Rita Altamore WA State rita.altamore@doh.wa.gov
DOH
20040506-001 06-May-04 Karen Van HL7 HQ karenvan@hl7.org

Hentenryck
20040506-002 06-May-04 Karen Van HL7 HQ karenvan@hl7.org
Hentenryck
20040506-003 06-May-04 Liora The Word liora@the-word-electric.com
Alschuler Electric
20040506-004 06-May-04 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov
20040506-005 06-May-04 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

20040506-006 06-May-04 Rita Altamore WA State rita.altamore@doh.wa.gov
DOH
20040827-001 27-Aug-04 Joann Larson Keiser joann.larson@kp.org

20040930-001 30-Sep-04 Scott Keiser scott.m.robertson@kp.org
Robertson
20050127-001 27-Jan-05 Dale Nelson dale@zed-logic.com
Norman Daoust
Yes 20021205-001 5-Dec-02 Daoust Associates normand@daoustassociates.com
joan.miller
@siemen
No 20021210-001 10-Dec-02 Joan Miller Siemens s.com
Kaiser
20070422-002 25-May-07 June Rosploch Permanente june.rosploch@kp.org
Description Attachment Status Disposition Memo
Certification Exam upgrade to 2.4 without notification to Y closed Closed.

those taking exam in San Antonio
while before V2.5 is widely implemented. Is it reasonable to Ask Liora if this is still an
certify in the most widely implemented version of the issue. June will do.
Standard, rather than the most current? 07-June-01 An email will be
07-June-01 History: It was decided to change the certification sent to the Education
exam to 2.4 but some users were not ready to use the version committee and the status will
and wanted certification for a past version (2.4 and 2.3 offer be changed to Referred.
both or all). N referred 07-June-18 Email sent
I'd like to see some guidance from HL7 to the TCs and SIGs Y closed Close. Co-chair handbook,
(i.e., to the co-chairs) regarding how promptly they must have co-chair training, and
the meeting minutes posted (see attachment) Decision making practices are
addressing this issue
Co-Chairs for a committee that sponsors a ballot, are notified Y closed Ask Hans if
by email each time a vote is cast for a ballot; some Co-Chairs we can close.
are frustrated with all the emails. (see attachment)
Ask Mike if
9/10/03 - update co-chair handbook to include instructions on this is
how to manage the ballot. PIC might develop a "best possible.
practices" for this and other issues.
Posting minutes to web Y Complete
9/10/03 - Update co-chair handbook and communicate naming

convention to the TSC list. PIC endorsed a naming
convention (refer to motions in see minutes) Freida will post
an email to the TSC list.
3 Improvement Suggestions (see attachment which includes Y closed

three items which are handled as tracking items 001, 002,
003)
Item 1) Ken to follow up with Gunnar to determine if this can

be closed; seems to be working for v3, but not applied to v2
Item 2) pending Y closed
Item 3) pending Y closed
HL7 Declarations Page (3 items see attachment) - Item 1 Y closed
9/10/03 - Joan to follow up with Glen re: closing

Item 2 - 9/10/03 - Joan to follow up with Glen re: closing Y closed
Item 3 - 9/10/03 - Joan to follow up with Glen Y closed
What kind of process is being followed, such that the review N closed
[Peer Review] form itself does no match other review forms
that HL7 uses during ballot periods? Suggest that, from a
process point of view, that HL7 use something that does not
need to be changed multiple times per year.
9/10/03 - Would be good to include in Co-Chair Handbook

and develop standard format, however, this is not a high
priority based on current usage. PIC needs to develop
standard practice and form. Also review 20030224-002 for
form suggestions.
Peer Review Candidate Documents - suggest the line number N closed

sequence not repeat with each page which makes reference on
the review form easier to input and locate (page numbers vary
by printer drivers thus aren't reliable and section number
requires an additional piece of data where a single line
number would suffice.)
9/10/03 - Consider with issue 0030224-001.
Recommend ballot content be reviewed prior to ballot (see Y closed Raised to ORC 2004/4/9
attachment for details) (Candidate for
closure). This
is actively
being
addressed as
part of the
ORC.
Ask HQ if we could have

both. June will send emails.
07-June-01 Status changed to
Give co-chairs an enlarged copy of the Ballot spreadsheet Referred.
(from the co-chair handbook) in lieu of the RIM. N referred 07-June-18 Email sent
Expand training for newcomers to provider more in-depth N closed Raised to ORC 2004/4/9
information. Issues
pertaining to
education of
HL7 meeting
attendees is
actively being
addressed as
part of ORC
activities.
Offer Facilitator Training and Co-Chair Training N Done In action item list for Gavin
1/21/2004 - will pursue Roberts Rules tutorial Tong
Co-Chairs should declare their cell phone numbers during the N closed Motion from
WG meetings to avoid having to hunt people down in person Gavin: PIC
to schedule last minute meetings, or ask a question. has
considered the
issue and
decided this is
best decided
by
committees.
Seconded by:
Joan.
Friendly
amendment
from Ken:
PIC believes
that
communicatio
n vehicles
across
committees
are the
responsibility
of the co-
chairs to work
out as they
see fit.
Carried
unopposed.
HL7 should announce a preferred method of document N closed Forward to Education.

distribution during WG meetings, including such things as a Culture/technology has
"50 page ISO document". changed, this is less of an
Along the same lines, "real-time" tutorial materials would issue.
eliminate the frustration for presenters and participants having
disparate handouts.
This could be accomplished by PDA, CD, CDRW, or
memory chip (USB or PCMCIA card).
Before each WG Meeting, HL7 should request per a letter of N closed Forward to HQ with
the hotel that they provide wireless connectivity. It is not commendation for Town &
expected the current hotels will have this available at this County solution. Please
time, but this would start to set expectations for the next time announce in advance so folks
we use a hotel. can do hardware prep.
Include a public directory of
HL7 Documents for
download.
During the WG meetings Co-Chairs should be required to N closed Resolved with institution of
notify other Co-Chairs when they are not available for a decision making practices.
meeting. This is very important for joint meetings. (This
deals with cancellation of a joint meeting with no prior
notification.)
Offer box lunches in lieu of sit-down for those who want to N Complete Referred to HQ Refer to HQ.
continue committee work during lunch.
Offer reduced registration fee/no lunch option

Address the process for withdrawing negative ballot N closed Refer to Ballot Task Force. Ballot task
votes. The current method, while working, has some inherent 7/27/05 F. Hall - This issue force needs to
problems due to the large number of ballots, committees, and has been resolved. You can define
voters. Can we figure out a way to do this per the website, now withdraw or retract votes recommendati
versus the email reminders? via the Ballot Desktop. ons, related
processes, and
policing. PIC
will forward
to Ballot Task
Force.
-There's no
means to
withdraw a
vote.
Change the HL7 Ballot Summary Report for Negative to N closed Refer to Ballot Task Force.
indicate Negative-Major and Negative-Minor.
Ultimately/Eventually if the Ballot Summary could also

indicate whether the change is substantive this would help co-
chairs manage the review process.
Add a column for artifact to the v3 Ballot. N closed Complete.
Develop a publication of "best practices" across committees; N closed Shift to Action Item list.
this might involve co-chair interviews, consolidation, and When we resurrect best
publication of best practices. practices and encourage.
At Workgroup meetings, have AV equipment N closed Refer to Peggy.

available in a "pool", e.g. could be reserved, but
not necessarily assigned to a committee for an
entire day.
We would suggest withdrawing of negative overall ballot Y closed Refer to Ballot Task Force.
votes be web-enabled; such that a profile is kept for each
voting member and we can withdraw any vote within a
specified period. Thus, at any moment in time, a voter could
see their outstanding negatives, and withdraw them as
requested. The Co-Chairs should also be able to see this
information as it relates to a particular ballot.
Referring a ballot item or question Y closed Refer to Ballot Task Force. Very similar
process to
PIC's Issue
Tracking
Application
under
development
by Mike
Craig.
Missing Announcements for 5 Ballots Y closed Refer to Ballot Task Force.

Ballot Pool Notification Y closed Refer to Ballot Task Force.
v3 Issues (see 1/21/2004 minutes for discussion) closed Refer to Ballot Task Force.
-There is no way provide cross domain ballot commentary
(for example providing enough richness in explanatory
material for v3 newbies.)
-There is no accountable committee for the general comments.
Committees are not consistently reporting back to balloters. closed Raised to ORC #2 Balloting.
2004/04/09
ORC is
actively
discussing
matters of
"Ballot
Fatigue". PIC
will continue
to monitor.
V3 Tooling Publication material is too labor intensive, for closed

example, requires hand editing XML. Upgrades are not
projected for several cycles.
Ballot should be printable Done
Committee with defined DMP did not follow their agenda. closed members
should police
their
committee
Under the v3 process we have not been successful in engaging closed Raised to ORC 2004/04/09
non fulltime volunteers. Issue has been
raised and
actively being
discussed in
ORC.
Ask if this is still an issues?

June will send email.
07-June-01 the Project Life
Cycle/HDF Team is actively
looking into this as it was
learned the different
committees have developed
their own solutions. June will
notify Rene and the status
Request v3 proposal database akin to current v2 proposal will be changed to Referred.
database on website. referred 07-June-18 Email sent
It takes a long time for a new member to come up to speed on closed Raised to ORC Refer to
the various aspects of HL7. The level of Education,
retention/understanding from the tutorials is small. Microsoft but also a V3
offers free training to developers via CD's, tutorials, briefs, issue.
etc. Perhaps HL7 could pay the "instructors/presenters" to 2004/04/09
create tutorials and the tutorials could be distributed for a ORC is
small fee, say $5.00 per CD. actively
discussing
this issue and
considering
alternative
means to
educating
membership
inexpensively
(including
web casting)
Comments Only Ballot Issues per Joan: "Let's add an item to Yes closed Raised to ORC 2004/04/09
our PIC issues list regarding the definition of "Comments ORC has been
Only Ballots". I don't have a problem with the concept, but I discussing
do think we need to have it defined in central location." alternate
mechanisms
for collecting
feedback
from
interested
parties in non-
ballot venues
(such as for-
comment
ballots).
It would be helpful that, since we now have HL7-assigned No closed Refer to

unique ballot IDs, that the request to withdraw a vote includes Ballot Task
the unique ballot ID. Force.
Web site organization could be improved in two areas - closed

Committees are not keeping up with their responsibility to
upload required documents. Accessing the V3 ballot (no link
to it from the balloting page when not in an open ballot
period), In general the HL7 Org site could use a user review
and re-organization.
How Do new co-chairs get the various DMP, Agenda closed Agreed, dealt with in action
templates they need. item id#81
(New co-chair training and PIC DMP provide some

information, but are there other process/forms/documents that
co-chairs need to deal with? There should be one place to
find this info.)
For TC's & SIG's who have not submitted an agenda early closed self-policing
enough to get in the printed listing, it's hard to find out/keep
on top of what's going on. Suggest making late agenda copies
available, in addition to posting it centrally.
Co-chairs don't submit their Agendas on time closed self-policing
Co-Chairs change agendas to the point that the printed closed self-policing
agendas at the meeting are useless
Would like to find a process to increase co-Chair information closed Somewhat dealt with at this
exchange during meetings and need time to discuss ongoing meeting with multiple co-
inter-committee related topics chair lunches held.
Create a central page to find Dec. Making Practices, get rid of closed Agreed, dealt with in action
old DMP. item id#81
refer to Electronic Services.

June will do.
07-June-01 Last week
Electronic Services (ES)
started discussion on how to
"Provide a way for co-chairs
to archive old documents and
is on their to-do list. June will
Provide a way for co-chairs to archive old documents, e.g. old notify
versions of DMP or draft minutes once approved without Klaus of this activity. The
requiring intervention for HQ to do so. Info could be retained status will be changes to
for audit trail under 'Archive' but (to avoid confusion) would Referred.
not be directly assessable as the 'latest/greatest/. referred 07-June-18 Email sent
Joint session scheduling problematic, especially for new co- closed self-policing
chairs. Re: the Thurs. a.m. meeting
1) Not all TC & SIGs are represented (suggest HL7 staffer be
present to identify non compliance)
2) Was hard to identify reps for the various groups (suggest
table cards for each group)
need consistent approach

where they post
Provide guidance for posting to committee websites as there is 07-June-01 The scope of this
currently inconsistency across committees as to where they issue was expanded and a
post items on their website. Closed new issue ( ) was opened.
Difficult to track down teleconference info. Suggest having a closed
section of website to list scheduled telecom info.
Don’t schedule duplicate meetings at night at the WGM. closed
QA V3 Tools (see attachment)

Ken to follow
9/10/03 - ongoing but Tools Task force is actively addressing. up with
Presented to Board in August as a v3 issue. Y Referred Refer to Tool Task Force Norman
Issue with ballot announcement (refer to attachment for
details) Refer to
ORC; ask
9/10/03 Follow up with HQ as to why this did not follow Hans if we
normal announcement process. Y Referred can close.
07-June-01 Nancy will send

an FYI email to Woody, as
T3F chair. In preparation for
a proposed meeting for input
from TC and SIGs. Freida
will post historical supporting
documents to the PIC list
prior to a scheduled meeting.
July 27, 2007 - Virginia
Lorenzi suggested the use of
Provide guidance for posting to committee websites as there is scripts that automatically
currently inconsistency across committees as to where they detect non-compliance and
post items on their website. How are we to operate with both send reminder emails and
the WIKI and HL7 Inc. Website designer and where is the exception reports. This idea
Document of Record to reside (meeting minutes, ballot has been passed on to
reconciliation, etc.)? This issue was expanded upon a previous Electronic Services
issue 20040827-001. N Closed committee.
Maps to: Need more Forward to: Added to list Part of Comments
info of items to larger
review. project and
Expect already being
response no addressed
later than:
????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
Best Practices
Best Practices
?????
??????
ORC/Tools
Task Force
ORC
Policing??
Single action
item
Best Practices
(For
uploading of
docs)
Single action
item
Best Practices
Best Practices
Best Practices
Single action
item
20020110-001 (List) - Certification
From Mike Henderson:
Although Version 2.5 will very soon be the current standard, it'll be a
while before V2.5 is widely implemented. Is it reasonable to certify in the most widely implemented version of the Standard, ra
--- Ioana Singureanu <ioana@eversolve.com> wrote:

>
> I would respectfully like to suggest that if Education SIG is planning > to > upgrade the certification, it may be indicated to go
since in a few more months that will be the latest version of 2.X. One > might
> wonder about upgrading to 2.4 so soon before 2.5 is released.
> Additionally, > the changes in 2.5 are significant enough that HL7 could offer a > certification upgrade for folks, like me, who
>
> In a nutshell, here is my recommendation:
>
> 1) Upgrade of the certification to Version 2.5 in a few months.
> Personally,
> as co-chair of Conformance, I would like see Conformance included in the
> certification curriculum. I would like to provide feedback on the topics
> covered in certification, if there was a forum for that.
>
> 2) In addition to V 2.5 certification, HL7 could offer a "certification
> upgrade" from 2.3 to 2.5 for those who are currently certified but wish
> to
> further their expertise.
>
> 3) I would like to suggest that future changes to certification be
> discussed
> at least at TSC level. Co-chairs should be notified of pending
> certification
> changes and they can notify their TCs and SIGs appropriately. (Another
> process improvement idea, perhaps.)
>
> On the other hand, if someone has prepared for certification in V 2.3.1,
> the
> material is very similar to V 2.4 (the most significant difference
> between
> the versions in question is the addition of new data types).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ioana Singureanu
> Eversolve, LLC
> 603-548-5640
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cq@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-cq@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf
> Of
> Mike Henderson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: karenvan; Joann.Larson@kp.org; grahame@kestral.com.au
> Cc: cq@lists.hl7.org; Freida.Hall@us.cgeyc.com; ken.rubin@med.va.gov;
> David
> John Marotta
> Subject: RE: Certification Exam process
>
> Hope everyone read the brochure. In my classes, I have been telling the
> students that the cert exam is based on V2.3. If anyone didn't read the
> brochure and is expecting a V2.3 exam, they are in for a big surprise.
>
> mh
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: karenvan; Joann.Larson@kp.org; grahame@kestral.com.au
> Cc: cq@lists.hl7.org; Freida.Hall@us.cgeyc.com; ken.rubin@med.va.gov;
> David
> John Marotta
> Subject: RE: Certification Exam process
>
> Hope everyone read the brochure. In my classes, I have been telling the
> students that the cert exam is based on V2.3. If anyone didn't read the
> brochure and is expecting a V2.3 exam, they are in for a big surprise.
>
> mh
>
> --- karenvan <karenvan@hl7.org> wrote:
> > Look at the meeting brochure--both hard copy and online versions
> > indicate that the test will be based on V2.4. We have just received
> > the information
> > to update the web site from David Marotta and that task is on Mike's
> > plate.
> > I believe the web site will be updated today.
>>
> > Karen
>>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joann.Larson@kp.org [mailto:Joann.Larson@kp.org]
> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:24 PM
> > To: grahame@kestral.com.au
> > Cc: cq@lists.hl7.org; Freida.Hall@us.cgeyc.com; ken.rubin@med.va.gov
> > Subject: Re: Certification Exam process
>>
>>
>>
> > Hi Grahame:
>>
> > Perhaps this is an item for the Process Improvement Committee?
>>
> > Joann Larson
>>
>>
>>
> > Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>
> > Sent by: owner-cq@lists.hl7.org
>>
>>
> > 01/06/2003 01:34 PM
> > Please respond to Grahame Grieve
>>
>>
>>
>> To: cq@lists.hl7.org
>> cc:
>> Subject: Re: [hl7-cq] CQ telcon minutes 06 Jan 03
>>
>>
>>
> > hi all
>>
> > >Jenni asked David Marotta about the exam and he told her it is
> > >updated
> > to
> > >Version 2.4. The website has not been updated. Mark thinks the
> > updated
> > >exam will be given during the upcoming meeting.
>>
> > I suppose this isn't the right place to mention
> > this but I'm not sure where is. Isn't it a little
> > bit late to change the version upon which the exam
> > is based?
>>
> > notifications went out today, 1 1/2 weeks before
> > the certification itself.
> > >updated
> > to
> > >Version 2.4. The website has not been updated. Mark thinks the
> > updated
> > >exam will be given during the upcoming meeting.
>>
> > I suppose this isn't the right place to mention
> > this but I'm not sure where is. Isn't it a little
> > bit late to change the version upon which the exam
> > is based?
>>
> > notifications went out today, 1 1/2 weeks before
> > the certification itself.
>>
> > Grahame
mented version of the Standard, rather than the most current?
tification, it may be indicated to go directly to Version > 2.5 >
on upgrade for folks, like me, who are already V 2.3 > certified.
20021118-001 (Michael Cassidy) – Meeting minutes
> From: Cassidy Michael
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:22 PM
> To: Miller Joan
> Subject: HL7 PIC
>
> Hi Joan,
> This has probably been proposed already to the Process Improvement
> Committee, but just in case...
>
> I'd like to see some guidance from HL7 to the TCs and SIGs (i.e., to the
> co-chairs) regarding how promptly they must have the meeting minutes
> posted (either to the website or to the appropriate listserver). I just
> scanned the current list (see:
> http://www.hl7.org/Lib_admin/Getallminutes.cfm ) and I noticed that many
> of the committees have not yet posted the Baltimore minutes. I think 3
> weeks following the final day of the meeting would be a fair deadline.
>
 -mike
20021205-001 (Norman Daoust) – QA Tools
Here's an item that has reared its head several times in the last few weeks.
I'm not certain if it's in the scope of the PIC.
Given that HL7 has become dependent on software tools developed by

volunteers, that these tools are required in order to develop HL7 version 3 ballot materials, and that there have been significan
postings of these tools, should HL7 institute an independent (meaning by someone other than the software developers) softwa
procedure for these software tool upgrades?
Or, at a minimum, there should be a testing procedure that the software

developers go through before release. The testing procedure should include, at a minimum, tests for all issues that have arisen
as well as other likely issues based on past experience.
HL7 has evolved, without official recognition of that fact, into a software development organization, but I don't think our informa
have kept pace with these changes.
That's my suggestion for the week.
Take care,
Norman
nd that there have been significant errors in several recent
n the software developers) software quality assurance
tests for all issues that have arisen more than once in the past
zation, but I don't think our informal policies and procedures

20021210-001 (Joan Miller) – Ballot Announcement Issues
Hello everyone:
I believe this to be a process issue. This really caught me off-guard,

especially since we are in the middle of:
Registering - for the Winter Meeting by 12/11 (20+ people)

By-laws Ballot - Closed and voted on 11/29
RIM Ballot in process and closes on 01/07
Version 2.5 (Membership) - Closes this Sunday, 12/15
XML Encoding Ballot (Membership) - Opens 12/10
Here's the history of the XML ballot BEFORE the Fall Meeting, as best I
could record it.
It was announced 07/11/02, and then without further notice Opened 12/10/02.
Other announced dates:

7/20 - 8/18
7/27 - 8/25
8/6 - 9/3
8/19 - 9/17
8/26 - 9/24
9/02 - 10/2
9/09 - 10/09
Temporarily Postponed
Also note that is was decided AFTER the Spring ballot was complete, that it was only at the committee level and not the mem
Any comments? Thanks, Joan

committee level and not the membership level.
20021212-001 (Joan Miller) – Ballot notification to co-chairs
Co-Chairs for a committee that sponsors a ballot, are notified by email each time a vote is cast for a ballot. Some of our Co-Ch
all the emails. I'd probably find it a bit annoying also.
ast for a ballot. Some of our Co-Chairs are a little frustrated with
20030108-001 (Joann Larson) – Naming convention/Standard posted documents
Hi Mike:
I need to post some old CQ minutes. I have no trouble getting to the

correct page, but I don't know how to post anything there.
Also, it seems to me we should have a standard way of presenting the

documents.
From what I see there now, it looks like I should post an unzipped file. Is
that what you would recommend?
At present we do not seem to have a standard naming convention. Is there

one? If not, can I establish one and rename our previous minutes?
I am also cc'ing Ken Rubin and Freida Hall since this might have some
Process Improvement implications.
Regards,
Joann Larson
20030114-001 (Gunnar Klein) – 3 items
Editorial Note from Freida Hall: I forwarded Gunnar’s email to several Board Members and Karen as the Board has discussed
publication for V2, for example ANSI has a concept of a maintenance mode publication which would mean we might publish V
much smaller publication (which would result in smaller ballot package as Gunnar suggests.) So there is a forward from and a
thread.
From Wes Rishel:

Interesting suggestions.
Should we consider making each of our chapters a book and approving and
publishing them separately? His point is that the fact that there are
interdependencies doesn't completely rule that out.
I am sure there are opportunities for us to improve the editorial quality of

our specifications. Do we want to pursue them?
-----Original Message-----
From: freida.hall@cgey.com [mailto:freida.hall@cgey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:05 PM
To: Rishel,Wes
Cc: john.quinn@cgey.com; karenvan@hl7.org; hammo001@mc.duke.edu
Subject: FYI - Proposal to split publications and use ISO rules for
standards (fromGunnar Klein)
FYI - From Gunnar Klein.
John/Karen, could you validate any requested changes ANSI prohibits (e.g. I
think we can we break down the ballots by chapter or domain but would have
to "package" with required infrastructure, e.g. we could ballot revised 2
and 3 (in v2.x), but not 3 without the infrastructure in 2a, 2b?)
Thanks,
Freida
----- Forwarded by Freida B. Hall/SMC/MC/EYLLP/US on 01/15/2003 08:17 PM

---|
|| gunnar@klein.se | |
|| Sent by: | To: pic@lists.hl7.org |
|| owner-pic@lists.| cc: |
|| hl7.org | Subject: Proposal to split |
|| | publications and use ISO rules for standards |
|| 01/14/2003 07:08| |
|| AM | |
|| Please respond | |
|| to gunnar | |
|| | |
|+-------------------+----------------------------------------------------|
HL7 Process Improvement Committee
I have a few suggestions to your committee for consideration without

really knowing the previous discussions in your committee. Please excuse
me for that.
|| to gunnar | |
|| | |
|+-------------------+----------------------------------------------------|
HL7 Process Improvement Committee
I have a few suggestions to your committee for consideration without

really knowing the previous discussions in your committee. Please excuse
me for that.
I am making these suggestions mainly from the perspective that I think it

would make the HL7 process better for its members and maybe I will become
one formally soon also. However, I also think that it would greaty
facilitate the interactin with ISO (and with CEN).
1. I think HL7 should split the approval process with balloting in various
stages on different topics/documents instead of balloting a gigantic
package
of specifications at the same time.
Rationale: Having separate parts of the standard approved independently

would give more attention to any one part, a more thorough review and
better
quality. Also, the parts that are mature and reach consensus can be
approved
an go further towards publication and implementation withoud being hold up
by the the more controversial parts. This is not only true when a new
standard (part) is released but also when maintenance and updates will be
required. Then you focus attention on one piece at a time.
I understand there are depedencies among different parts but that is

normal
in any complex system of standards, and HL7 also depends on lots of
external
standards from ISO or W3C etc which you reference.
I sincerely believe that a split of the work in manageable parts will

facitilitate the process of obtaining international approval. The all or
none approval is not helpful and real healthcare implementations do not
require it. Out there there is and will be a mixture of proprietary
solutions and communiations compliant to some version of many different
types of standards.
2. I think HL7 should seriously consider applying at least some of the

well
established international rules for drafting standards. These are not only
used by ISO but also by IEC, CEN and many other bodies such as national
standards bodies. I am now referring to the ISO/IEC Directives part 2:
Rules
for drafting and presentation of standards. This and other information
from
ISO is available at
http://isotc.iso.ch/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2123/SDS_WEB/sds_home.htm??
Redirect=1
I think you will find that they are not really restircting expressiveness
but can help in achieving high and consistent quality. There are formal
requirements on the different sections etc but also lots of good advice on
language which is appropriate and not appropriate in international
standards. If you want HL7 standards to become in the end fully endorsed
as
International standards you would have to rewrite them anyway.
3. The process rules of ISO (The Directives part 1 may also give you some
advice on how to conduct an international body even if they should not be
applied as is.
I think you will find that they are not really restircting expressiveness
but can help in achieving high and consistent quality. There are formal
requirements on the different sections etc but also lots of good advice on
language which is appropriate and not appropriate in international
standards. If you want HL7 standards to become in the end fully endorsed
as
International standards you would have to rewrite them anyway.
3. The process rules of ISO (The Directives part 1 may also give you some
advice on how to conduct an international body even if they should not be
applied as is.
Kind regards
Gunnar Klein/CEN/TC 251 chairman

Karen as the Board has discussed alternate methods of
h would mean we might publish V2 annually, but it would be a
) So there is a forward from and a reply from Wes Rishel in the
20030124-001 (Glen Marshall) – 3 items

> From: Marshall Glen
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 12:46 PM
> To: Miller Joan
> Subject: RE: HL7 Declaration Page
>
> OK. So here are my concerns for PIC, public consumption ...
>
> 1) The PIC should publish a "triage" list, showing what priority items are
> being worked on. This is equivalent to publishing an agenda, which is
> what all HL7 committees do.
>
> 2) I'd like to see a statement of issues, versus just process changes.
> That is, "If problems X, Y, and Z were fixed, then we would see these
> improvements: a, b, c, ..." The process changes are the actual fixes, but
> they should be targeted at problem/resolution statements. The purpose
> here is to create interest and proactive buy-in to the process changes.
>
> 3) Each problem/resolution should be traceable to HL7 strategic and
> business plans, assuming those documents are available and up-to-date. If
> they are not available, then that suggests the top priority process change
> item is to prepare & update the plans.
>
> Glen
20030311-001 (Sandy Boyer) Ballot content review
Sandy:
Thanks for raising this issue. We'll put it into our issue tracking and assign it a number (which will follow shortly). We're curren
prioritizing and addressing issues, and ballot is among the high priority items.
(also, I've cc'd the PIC list to read-in all PIC members to the issue). Thanks much.
- Ken
From: Sandy Boyer [mailto:slboyer@attglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:18 PM
To: Ken Rubin; Freida Hall
Cc: Karen van Hentenryk
Subject: A process issue on balloting in HL7
Hi Freida and Ken -
I know that you're looking at balloting issues in general, so I wanted to mention one that I'd like to see included in your discuss
There seems to be a trend toward committees not reviewing ballot content before a ballot goes out - the feeling seems to be th
so they'll just put the ballot out and the committee can look at it then. In some committees, it is actually being treated as policy
review at all) is encouraged during balloting rather than before.
My feeling (put a little bluntly) is that a committee has no business putting out a ballot that it doesn't stand behind. While it is tr
be resolved beforehand and the ballot period can be useful to reconcile those, I believe that should be the exception.
Right now HL7 is very concerned about the limitations on resources and time that its members have to devote to the large am
done. I think we could make much more efficient use of everyone's time if work products were reviewed earlier rather than late
work that had to be undone and re-done.
If you agree, I would like to see this approach built into any guidance that you might be planning to give committees about the
balloting process.
Sandy Boyer
ch will follow shortly). We're currently in the process of
ke to see included in your discussions.
oes out - the feeling seems to be that people are short of time,
is actually being treated as policy - rigorous review (or any
doesn't stand behind. While it is true that some issues may not
should be the exception.
ers have to devote to the large amount of work there is to be

re reviewed earlier rather than later - there would be a lot less
ning to give committees about the proper management of the

2003-12-02 (Joan Miller) Withdrawal of Negative Ballot Votes
From: owner-pic@lists.hl7.org on behalf of Miller Joan [joan.miller@siemens.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:45 AM
To: 'pic@lists.hl7.org'
Cc: SHS HL7 Vote
Subject: Withdrawal of Negative Ballot Votes
I (on behalf of the Siemens HL7 Voting Members) would like to enter a request that the actual steps in the process for withdra
by voting members, be reviewed and changed. Right now the process is cumbersome at best, for both the voters and the Co-
We would suggest withdrawing of negative overall ballot votes be web-enabled; such that a profile is kept for each voting mem
vote within a specified period. Thus, at any moment in time, a voter could see their outstanding negatives, and withdraw them
Chairs should also be able to see this information as it relates to a particular ballot.
We understand there are many related processes around this request, but as the new website is being developed, we'd ask th
be considered.
Thanks, Joan
SIEMENS Medical Solutions Health Services

Joan R. Miller RN, BSN, MS, CLNC
Soarian Health Connections
HL7 Product Manager
51 Valley Stream Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355-1406
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
E-Mail: joan.miller@siemens.com
SCD http://scd.siemens.com/db4/lookUp?scdid=R3880000557246
Ed Hammond: I think this is a grat idea!
Ed
Hello all,
I would also support this request.
Thanks,
Gavin Tong
HL7 Canada
Could we also add considerations for the voting processes of the Affiliates. For the internal voting processes of the Affiliates to
National Standards Institute (ANSI) is awkward and not really appropriate. Of course we fully appreciate and respect the vital
USA realm.
Klaus (Veil)
Klaus,
I disagree. The voting process is aimed at promoting HL7 to accreditation as an American National Standard. ANSI is actuall
international accreditation. In any case, as an ANSI accredited Standards Development Organization, HL7 is obligated to adh
participant in committee and membership ballots the IA face the same obligations and requirements as any other member. Th
realm. Alternately the IA may choose not to enroll in a ballot pool, but once enrolled must adhere to the rules.
+Chuck (Meyer)
Chuck,
Maybe I did not state the focus of my suggestion clearly enough.
I was wondering if Joan's suggestion for a web-based tool to make the vote/ballot management simpler could be extended to
ANSI rules without effecting their internal voting processes.
Similar to US organisations like Siemens USA, we Affiliates need to manage our voters in casting ballots and withdrawing neg
process is cumbersome at best". Many Affiliates have the additional task of achieving formal internal consensus before they c
participant in committee and membership ballots the IA face the same obligations and requirements as any other member. Th
realm. Alternately the IA may choose not to enroll in a ballot pool, but once enrolled must adhere to the rules.
+Chuck (Meyer)
Chuck,
Maybe I did not state the focus of my suggestion clearly enough.
I was wondering if Joan's suggestion for a web-based tool to make the vote/ballot management simpler could be extended to
ANSI rules without effecting their internal voting processes.
Similar to US organisations like Siemens USA, we Affiliates need to manage our voters in casting ballots and withdrawing neg
process is cumbersome at best". Many Affiliates have the additional task of achieving formal internal consensus before they c
votes. A web-enabled tool with the appropriate functionality could make this much easier.
Klaus
Klaus,
I can both empathize and sympathize, I had similar issues when attempting to consolidate/coordinate the McKesson ballot. H
suggestion as relevant to an organizational/IA ballot process; although that's not a bad idea. Rather, that she was suggesting
current ballot management process that requires a bunch of individually initiated and managed emails with manual tally of the
+Chuck
Hi Chuck and Klaus: Maybe this breakdown will help explain. The first three items just help to paint the picture of where we a
request for withdrawal, which is many times in the midst of a new ballot cycle. The real meat of this reply starts with #4.
Thanks, Joan
Here's my current process:
1. Ballot announcement issued by HL7:

• I send an email notice to our HL7 participants asking for ballot reviewers.
• I receive emails back from the reviewers indicating which ballots they will review.
• I record this info in our internal DB, which I have populated with ballot information/dates based on the announcement.
• HL7 voters are sent an email to join the appropriate ballot pools.
• HL7 voters notify me regarding which ballot pools they have joined.
2. Ballots are posted and announced again by HL7:
• I make any changes that occurred between the announcements to our internal db.
• I download the ballot material, and ballot comment sheets, and post all of it to our internal db.
• I send out another email alerting the reviewers to the location of the ballots, ballot comment spreadsheets, external deadline
• Ballot reviews are done, and consolidated on one one spreadsheet for each ballot.
3. Voting:
• Reviewers send me their vote/ballot comment sheets.
• I double-check and standardize our internal information on the ballot comment sheets,
• I post these along with our vote to our DB.
• I place the initial vote along with the ballot comment sheets.
• I send another email asking our voters to vote on the appropriate ballots.
• The voters vote on the appropriate ballots, and they send me confirmations of their voting.
• I post this information to our DB.
4. Withdrawal of negatives:
• Each voter receives an email from the appropriate Co-Chair asking us to withdraw our negatives.
• I send an email to the ballot reviewers and ask if they are OK with us withdrawing our negative. Discussion per email/phone
• I receive the OK to withdraw from the reviewers.
• I send an email withdrawing my negative vote to the Co-chair.
• I post this info again to our internal DB.
• I send an email to the appropriate voters.
• The voters each withdraw their negative votes and copy me.
• I post this information to our DB
Soooooooooooo, assuming just for that last step:

• each request for withdrawal was per a separate email
• there were 8 negative ballot votes in one round of voting
• each ballot had an average of 7 voters for each ballot which for this example only are the same people
This could mean that:
• The voters could receive/send 24 emails each.
• EACH Co-Chair will send/receive no less than 9 emails for each ballot - just from Siemens voters!
• Don't even try to guess the number I have to handle, but that's not the issue here.
• Oh, but let's not forget the other emails where the reviewers are clarifying the responses with the Co-Chairs, and we are clar
other.
• I post this information to our DB
Soooooooooooo, assuming just for that last step:

• each request for withdrawal was per a separate email
• there were 8 negative ballot votes in one round of voting
• each ballot had an average of 7 voters for each ballot which for this example only are the same people
This could mean that:
• The voters could receive/send 24 emails each.
• EACH Co-Chair will send/receive no less than 9 emails for each ballot - just from Siemens voters!
• Don't even try to guess the number I have to handle, but that's not the issue here.
• Oh, but let's not forget the other emails where the reviewers are clarifying the responses with the Co-Chairs, and we are clar
other.
We cannot expect HL7 to decrease the work of our internal processes, however, we would like to decrease the amount of time
for the voters, and the Co-Chairs when dealing with multiple ballots. If those voters (who many times are the ballot reviewers
spend less time with the withdrawal process, maybe they could spend more time in developing the standards.
Hope I haven't muddied the waters. :-) Joan

Hi Joan,
Thank you for this breakdown. I think it makes very clear the process that an organisation may need to undertake to
1. ensure that its review experts get to comment on a ballot (and we at HL7.org are always keen for good quality technical fee
2. ensure that actual balloting is done according to our understanding of ANSI rules (as I have expressed before, there is no q
of complying with ANSI)
I know that other organisations and Affiliates are faced with the same challenge. One could argue that the reviewers and the v
people, but in a volunteer organisation like HL7 Australia we cannot direct our members to undertake reviews, rather we rely o
the voters on a daily basis when multiple ballots are running in parallel is clearly impractical.
Simply put: we need help.
Klaus
al steps in the process for withdrawing of negative ballot votes
est, for both the voters and the Co-Chairs.
profile is kept for each voting member and we can withdraw any
ding negatives, and withdraw them as requested. The Co-
te is being developed, we'd ask that this portion of the process
oting processes of the Affiliates to be dictated by the American

y appreciate and respect the vital importance of ANSI for the
National Standard. ANSI is actually its entry point for eventual

ganization, HL7 is obligated to adhere to ANSI rules. As a
ements as any other member. This is not specific to the USA
dhere to the rules.
ent simpler could be extended to help the Affiliates meet the
asting ballots and withdrawing negatives. As Joan says "the

internal consensus before they can cast or withdraw their
ements as any other member. This is not specific to the USA
dhere to the rules.
ent simpler could be extended to help the Affiliates meet the
asting ballots and withdrawing negatives. As Joan says "the

internal consensus before they can cast or withdraw their
oordinate the McKesson ballot. However, I did not see Joan's

Rather, that she was suggesting a tools approach to our
ed emails with manual tally of the results.
to paint the picture of where we are, when we finally get the

t of this reply starts with #4.
sed on the announcement.
db.
t spreadsheets, external deadlines, and internal deadlines.
atives.
ative. Discussion per email/phone ensues.
ame people
voters!
ith the Co-Chairs, and we are clarifying internally with each

ame people
voters!
ith the Co-Chairs, and we are clarifying internally with each
ke to decrease the amount of time, frustration, and confusion

any times are the ballot reviewers also) and the Co-Chairs could
ing the standards.
ay need to undertake to
keen for good quality technical feedback on ballots)
ve expressed before, there is no question about the importance
argue that the reviewers and the voters should be the same
ndertake reviews, rather we rely on volunteering. And changing
2003-12-15 (Joann Larson)
Hello John, Freida and Ken:
At a recent CQ Steering meeting, the CQ chairs discussed the "Obtain

Approval from John Quinn" process. We seem to have some difficulty tracking
the status of these requests beginning with whether or not one of us
actually did submit a request. We also spend time wading through our
email trying to determine if we have received an official answer. I took on
the action item of bringing this to your attention to see if we might do
something about process improvement in this area.
One potential improvement that occurs to me -- would it be possible to have

a special page on the HL7 website for the "Office of the TSC Chair" where
TC chairs could post their requests and John Q could post his official
response? We need something like this for handling our requests for a
number of things such as 1) approval for DSTU status for ballots, and 2)
for approval to advance a ballot to the next level or to publishing when
significant changes have been made that might or might not be
controversial.
It just occurred to me to check if there was such a page already, but there
does not seem to be.
Similar issues come up with referral to committees. We have no good way to

track the status of referred items. This is especially difficult if we need
an answer to a question in order to resolve a ballot comment within CQ.
This issue was discussed in v3 Publishing last week, and, again I said I
would bring the topic to your attention.
I do not have a suggestion for an improvement to the "Referral to Another

Committee" issue.
I will be unable to attend the PIC meeting today as it conflicts with the
CQ teleconference.
Regards,
Joann Larson
2003-12-15 002 (Joan Miller) Missing Ballot Announcements
Thanks Mike. That explains it, and we really appreciate your help. Going home (a.k.a hotel) now.............................

HL7 Product Manager
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
_______________________________________________________
From: Mike Craig (HL7) [mailto:mcraig@hl7.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:53 PM
To: Miller Joan
Cc: Karen VanHentenryck (HL7); 'Freida Hall'; 'Ken Rubin'
Subject: RE: Missing Announcements for 5 Ballots
Sorry to hear that you are not feeling well and hope you get better soon. Christmas is not the time to be sick as I'm sure there
The Backbone document was edited this round by me...and those edits put Pharmacy as a for comments only document wher
DSTU. I have corrected it and uploaded it to the web site. A patch is pending as there are a few other changes that need to b
announcements which should all go out on friday.
The new Templates "for comments only" entry will not be added to the backbone document at this time because we were not i
a part of the V3 family ballot and may stand on its own for future ballots...once this cycle has closed it may turn into a v3 ballot
remains to be seen.
Does that explain better why and where?
Mike Craig
Director of Technical Services
Health Level Seven, Inc.
3300 Washtenaw Ave. Suite 227
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
http://www.hl7.org
From: Miller Joan [mailto:joan.miller@siemens.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:36 PM
To: 'Karen VanHentenryck (HL7)'; 'Mike Craig (HL7)'
Cc: 'Freida. Hall (E-mail)'; 'Ken. Rubin (E-mail)'
Importance: High
I am very sick with a cold, so I'm hoping it's my fuzzy brain at fault, but........when I opened the ballot to determine the sponsor
Only ballots (TCs/SIG are not listed on the website for these), I noticed the following ballots listing discrepancies (in red) betwe
2.3 Special Documents for Comment Only and what is posted on the balloting webpage. HELP! Thanks, Joan
Under 2.3 in the ballot Listed on HL7 ballot webpage
V3 Laboratory, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Laboratory, Release 1
V3 Pharmacy, Release 1 NOT listed Isn't this a DSTU?
V3 Patient Care, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Patient Care, Release 1
V3 Personnel Management, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Personnel Management, Release 1
V3 Clinical Genomics, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Genomics, Release 1
HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML ITS -
Functional Requirements, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Function
NOT Listed under 2.3 HL7 Template and Archetype Architecture
From: Miller Joan
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:15 PM
To: 'Karen VanHentenryck (HL7)'; Mike Craig (HL7)
Cc: Freida. Hall (E-mail); Ken. Rubin (E-mail)
V3 Laboratory, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Laboratory, Release 1
V3 Pharmacy, Release 1 NOT listed Isn't this a DSTU?
V3 Patient Care, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Patient Care, Release 1
V3 Personnel Management, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Personnel Management, Release 1
V3 Clinical Genomics, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Genomics, Release 1
HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML ITS -
Functional Requirements, Release 1 HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Function
NOT Listed under 2.3 HL7 Template and Archetype Architecture
From: Miller Joan
The templates issue. :-) Joan
From: Karen VanHentenryck (HL7) [mailto:karenvan@hl7.org]
To: Miller Joan; Karen VanHentenryck (HL7); Mike Craig (HL7)

Joan:
I'm not sure what you mean by the reminder to the co-chairs. What is that referring to?
Karen
Hi Karen:
I found the reference: "Note: Content for Clinical Genomics, Laboratory, Patient Care and a new ITS Functional Requirement
as supporting draft content during this ballot cycle to round out the material." However, this doesn't say the material will be a
name of the material.
The change in status for PM was communicated very clearly, and was not listed as an issue in my first email.
We aren't trying to be difficult, and do appreciate the complexity of managing the large volume of HL7 ballot information from t
We are only raising the issue because when we solicit ballot reviewers, the less confusion we have, the greater the chance we
in time. Thank you for giving PIC the go-ahead to review this process for possible changes. My only suggestion for change a
the Comments Only ballots as the other ballots are listed with bullet points and the specific name of the material, which HL7 h
past. Also a reminder to the Co-Chairs may be warranted.
Best regards and thanks for engaging in this discussion. Joan
Joan:
In the original notification of upcoming ballots, these documents were, with the exception of Templates, listed as being those th
(look at the Note under the Version 3 heading on the original announcement--it tells which documents are going out for comm
announced the change in status for Personnel Management in the Ballot Open announcement (it went from being normative t
Templates caught us off guard--they didn't tell us beforehand that they wanted something out there for comment and they anti
list serve are the ones that will comment.
If people want to change the announcements, that's fine with us. Once PIC decides what will work best for everyone, let us kn
this end.
T hanks,
Karen
From: Miller Joan [joan.miller@siemens.com]

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:07 AM
list serve are the ones that will comment.
If people want to change the announcements, that's fine with us. Once PIC decides what will work best for everyone, let us kn
this end.
T hanks,
Karen

Good morning Mike and Karen:
I understand that the "rules" for comment only "ballots" are not the same as for the other ballots. My point is this....had I not
and compared it to my list (developed from the announcements) I would never have known that they were five more "Commen
review. While a formal announcement may not be required for "Comments Only", it would seem that we need to be notified in
information is available for review. My question was, "Did I miss the announcement?", or it is not a standard process that thes
Thanks for your help and best regards,

Joan
HL7 Product Manager
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
_______________________________________________________
Joan:
None of these are ballots. They are simply "out there" for comment.
Karen
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:07 PM
Joan:
None of these are ballots. They are simply "out there" for comment.
Karen
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:07 PM
To: 'karenvan@hl7.org'; 'mike@hl7.org'
Subject: FW: Missing Announcements for 5 Ballots
Importance: High
Hi Karen and Mike:
Unless I missed an announcement, there are five ballots on the HL7 website that were not listed in your November 7th Ann
Ballot Groups, or the three subsequent Announcement of Ballot Openings.
Of course, it's entirely possible I missed these, and hope this is the case, but right now I can find no mention of the following
the HL7 website.
Thanks, Joan
Version 3 Content for Comments Only
a.. HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Genomics, Release 1
b.. HL7 Version 3 Standard: Laboratory, Release 1
c.. HL7 Version 3 Standard: Patient Care, Release 1
d.. HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Functional Requirements, Release 1
e.. HL7 Template and Archetype Architecture
HL7 Product Manager
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
) now.............................
e time to be sick as I'm sure there is much to do.
or comments only document where you are correct, it is in fact

a few other changes that need to be made and I have other
at this time because we were not informed that it would become

s closed it may turn into a v3 ballot document but that status
he ballot to determine the sponsoring SIG/TC for the Comments

listing discrepancies (in red) between Comments Only under
ELP! Thanks, Joan
1
nt, Release 1
ease 1
echnology Specification - Functional Requirements, Release 1

1
nt, Release 1
ease 1
echnology Specification - Functional Requirements, Release 1
a new ITS Functional Requirements document will be published

s doesn't say the material will be available for comments, or the
in my first email.
me of HL7 ballot information from the HL7 staff's perspective.
e have, the greater the chance we have of recruiting reviewers
My only suggestion for change at this point, would be to list
name of the material, which HL7 has done very effectively in the
Templates, listed as being those that would go out for comment

ocuments are going out for comment only). We also
ent (it went from being normative to for comment only).
t there for comment and they anticipate that the people on their
ll work best for everyone, let us know and we'll implement on

ll work best for everyone, let us know and we'll implement on
allots. My point is this....had I not printed the entire webpage

hat they were five more "Comments Only" ballots out there for
eem that we need to be notified in some manner that the
s not a standard process that these ballots are announced.
t listed in your November 7th Announcement of Formation of
an find no mention of the following other that what is listed on
Requirements, Release 1
2004-01-07 (Glen Marshall) – Ballot Pool automatic notification
From: Marshall Glen [mailto:Glen.F.Marshall@siemens.com]
To: 'Rubin, Ken (EDS)'
Cc: Miller Joan
Subject: RE: XML ITS Data Types Ballot to Close Jan 9
Ken,
Please add my name to the complainers' list. As one of the recipients of the many HL7 ballot reminder e-mails, I assure you t
and unhelpful. From a process perspective, multiple automated e-mail notifications are bad marketing. People treat multiple e
line as spam, and that means even the good stuff may mistakenly go out in the garbage.
Glen
From: Rubin, Ken (EDS) [mailto:Ken.Rubin@med.va.gov]
To: Miller Joan; 'Karenvan@HL7.org'
Cc: SHS HL7 Vote; Auriemma Joseph; Freida. Hall (E-mail); Rubin, Ken (EDS)
Joan:
It is certainly your "right" to add this to the PIC issue list. That said, though, while I agree that the process is a little burdensom
"broken". Messages are easy enough to delete.
May I suggest that we add it and track it as an issue to determine if a number of others raise the same concern.
My personal belief is that this certainly isn't a showstopper or priority item, there are probably some good ideas out there on h
- Ken
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:54 AM
To: 'Karenvan@HL7.org'
Cc: SHS HL7 Vote; Auriemma Joseph; Freida. Hall (E-mail); Ken. Rubin (E-mail)
Hi Karen:
While I understand the intent of these (automated?) messages, the sheer volume of them are becoming increasingly annoying
asked our voters to join the ballot pools ahead of the actual voting time, so HL7 can evaluate quorum needs. However, if we'r
in advance messages for the new ballot pools, in addition to the old membership ballot pools, we may need to evaluate our pr
Any suggestions? I've included Freida and Ken on this email, to garner their opinion as to whether this needs to be added to
Thanks so very much, and with best regards, Joan

HL7 Product Manager
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
_______________________________________________________
From: Karenvan@HL7.org [mailto:Karenvan@HL7.org]
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
_______________________________________________________
From: Karenvan@HL7.org [mailto:Karenvan@HL7.org]
To: Miller Joan
Subject: XML ITS Data Types Ballot to Close Jan 9
You are receiving this message because you signed up for the ballot pool for HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Te
Types, Release 1 but have not yet returned your vote.
Please help us achieve quorum on this ballot by returning your vote on or before the Jan 9 ballot close date (ballot closes as m
If you would like to be removed from the ballot pool, please respond to this message and ask to be removed.
Thanks,
Karen
ot reminder e-mails, I assure you that they are both annoying
marketing. People treat multiple e-mails with the same subject
at the process is a little burdensome I don't think it is singificantly
the same concern.
y some good ideas out there on how we might do this better.
e becoming increasingly annoying. Historically, Siemens has

e quorum needs. However, if we're going to keep getting these
s, we may need to evaluate our practices in this area.
whether this needs to be added to the PIC issue list.

Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Data
allot close date (ballot closes as midnight eastern time).
k to be removed.
2004-03-10 (Joan Miller) Informational Versus Comments Only Ballots

Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:04 AM
To: Miller Joan
Cc: 'GTong@cihi.ca'; Freida. Hall (E-mail); Ken. Rubin (E-mail); SHS HL7 Advisory Team
Subject: RE: Informational Versus Comments Only Ballots
[Miller Joan] Here is Karen's response. The part about Comments Only Ballot is troubling. Joan
To: Miller Joan
Subject: RE: Informational Versus Comments Only Ballots
Hi Joan:
The term that should be used is informative ballot. This is a specific type of ballot, whose rules are found in Addendum A of
Only ballot is something that was recently "made up" and is not part of the HL7 bylaws or P&P. My understanding is that thes
the committees wish to put out for review and comments. There have no official standing within HL7.
There is a process in place to announce the new policies/procedures. I e-mailed Freida earlier today and asked her to call
procedure with her before I blast away. Basically, what the Board decided was that the new or updated policies and/or proced
membership and to the international committee. If you look at the beginning of the P&P document, just after the table of conte
enumerates the changes. The Board decided that maintaining a redlined version of this would be too confusing. I just want to
hit send.
Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll try to answer them. Hope all is well with you, Joan.
Karen
To: 'karenvan@hl7.org'
Cc: 'GTong@cihi.ca'; 'mike@hl7.org'; Freida. Hall (E-mail); Ken. Rubin (E-mail); SHS HL7 Advisory Team
Subject: Informational Versus Comments Only Ballots
Hi Karen:
Perhaps you have already answered these questions, and if so, I apologize upfront.
What is the difference between Informational Ballots and Comments Only ballots, and can you point me to the right place
this question in PIC, and Gavin was to search the P&P's and I was to search the Bylaws. I can't see to find any information (o
comments?) ;-) in the Bylaws, or the P&P's with a quick word search.
Also I just noticed that the P&P's were just updated on the HL7 website. Is there a summary of changes that we can revie
place to announce these types of changes? If not, I guess I need to talk to those pesky PIC folks - oh, wait, that's me. :-)
With best regards and appreciation for your patience,
Joan

Also I just noticed that the P&P's were just updated on the HL7 website. Is there a summary of changes that we can revie
place to announce these types of changes? If not, I guess I need to talk to those pesky PIC folks - oh, wait, that's me. :-)
With best regards and appreciation for your patience,
Joan
HL7 Product Manager
Phone: +01 334.749.3993
Voicemail: +01 610.219.8341
Fax: +01 334.745.3349
. Joan
rules are found in Addendum A of the P&P manual. Comments

&P. My understanding is that these are simply documents that
thin HL7.
arlier today and asked her to call me so that I can walk thru the
or updated policies and/or procedures would be e-mail to the
ument, just after the table of contents, you will find a table that
uld be too confusing. I just want to review with Freida before I
with you, Joan.
7 Advisory Team
an you point me to the right place to find the answer? I raised

can't see to find any information (or would that be
mary of changes that we can review? Is there a process in

folks - oh, wait, that's me. :-)
mary of changes that we can review? Is there a process in
folks - oh, wait, that's me. :-)
During one of the recent WGMs, a non-active HL7 showed up during some committee meetings and frustrated the process by
caused the CQ co-chairs to re-examine the rules when it comes to committee meetings. The FM committee have indicated tha
CQ (and FM) would like PIC te examine the ANSI requirements related to partcipants in committee meeting, and to resolve th
our own Bylaws, and the current practices around registering "members of comittees".
The details of our own (CQ) investigation of this issue can be found below.
Regards,
-Rene
---------------------
From the CQ DMP: “Committee meetings are open to all interested parties including but not limited to members of HL7, HL7
as referenced in the HL7 Bylaws – Article 3.02.”.“Guests are welcome to participate in the work of the committee and are reco
HL7, e.g., not a member of HL7, or guests of the CQ TC, e.g., a member of
HL7 but not a declared member of the CQ TC.”“When formal votes are taken the chair will explain the eligibility for voting. Re
shall always receive a vote in keeping with ANSI openness rules. (.. snip ..). For non-binding decisions only, all meeting partic
opportunity to vote at the discretion of the presiding chair.”
- Note that this means that non-declared CQ members that participate in a CQ meeting don’t have a vote.
From the bylaws:

“3.03.03 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MEMBERSHIP - Members shall have the opportunity
members of any one or more Technical Committees and Special Interest Groups. Maintaining membership in a Technical Com
member participate in at least 60% of the Technical Committee ballots pertaining to approval or adoption of HL7 protocol spec
thereof, cast during the period of one year from the date of declaration.”
However, the bylaws also state this:

“5.01 PARTICIPANTS - Non-members and representative members of all categories and affiliations in good standing and pres
deemed participants and, except as otherwise specifically provided in the bylaws or policy and procedures, shall have the righ
the Technical Committees and Special Interest Groups.”
- 3.03.03 is contained elsewhere in the bylaws, so it takes precedence over the more generic statement in 5.01
From this one can conclude the following:

-Only self-declared registered members of CQ have a vote. The lose their right to vote if they don’t vote in at least 60% of all b
their sign-up.
-HOWEVER: Nothing prevents someone who loses their membership to again register as a member the very next day, so the
real requirement at all.
-The often quoted rule that “all those signed up to the CQ e-mail list”
automatically are to be seen as “registered CQ members” doesn’t exist.
A committee's DMP can't overrule a Bylaw, so some of these issues may need to be fixed in the bylaws.
ings and frustrated the process by incessent arguing. This
e FM committee have indicated that they have similar questions.
mmittee meeting, and to resolve the apparant conflicts between
t limited to members of HL7, HL7 affiliates, and guests of HL7

ork of the committee and are recognized as either guests of
xplain the eligibility for voting. Registered CQ TC members

g decisions only, all meeting participants may have the
t have a vote.
embers shall have the opportunity to declare themselves

ng membership in a Technical Committee requires that the
l or adoption of HL7 protocol specifications, or any portion
iliations in good standing and present in assembly shall be

nd procedures, shall have the right to cast a vote in meetings of
c statement in 5.01
y don’t vote in at least 60% of all ballots in the year following
member the very next day, so the above requirement is not a
the bylaws.

2007 - 08 - 15 Interim Tracking PIC Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2007 - 08 - 15 Interim Tracking PIC Issues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2007 - 08 - 15 Interim Tracking PIC Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process Improvement Cmt.

Part of larger project

During one of the recent WGMs, a non-active

Need new ideas on how to encourage best

The Committee Disbanding Process should be

July 27, 2007 - Freida Hall

Adding a section to the handbook that

The International Mentoring Committee

05/18/2020 13:23:49 Page 1 of 79

No 20020110-001 10-Jan-03 List

Liora The Word

Yes 20021212-001 12-Dec-02 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller

No 20030108-001 8-Jan-03 Joann Larson Kaiser joann.larson@kp.org

Yes 20030114-001 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

20030114-002 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

20030114-003 14-Jan-03 Gunnar Klein CEN/TC 251 gunnar.klein@sis.se

No 20030124-001 24-Jan-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com

20030124-003 24-Jan-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com

No 20030224-001 24-Feb-03 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller

No 20030224-002 24-Feb-03 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

Yes 20030311-001 11-Mar-03 Sandy Boyer slboyer@attglobal.net

No 20030429-001 29-Apr-03 Greg Seppala gregg.seppala@med.va.gov

No 20030521-001 21-May-03 Dr. Martin Siemens mkfrad@aol.com

No 20030521-002 21-May-03 Dr. Martin UC mkfrad@aol.com

No 20030521-003 21-May-03 Dr. Martin UC mkfrad@aol.com

Yes 20030521-004 21-May-03 Dr. Martin mkfrad@aol.com

20030906-001 6-Sep-03 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

20030908-001 8-Sep-03 Glen Marshall Siemens glen.f.marshall@siemens.com

20030909-001 9-Sep-03 Helen Stevens helen.stevens@gpinformatics.com

20030910-001 10-Sep-03 Ken Rubin VHA ken.rubin@med.va.gov

20030910-002 10-Sep-03 Abdul-Malik Shakir abdulmalik@shakirconsulting.com

20031202-001 2-Dec-03 Joan Miler Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com

20031215-001 15-Dec-03 Joann Larson Kaiser joann.larson@kp.org

20031215-002 15-Dec-03 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com

20040121-001 21-Jan-04 Dick Harding Queensland Dick_Harding@health.qld.gov.au

20040121-002 21-Jan-04 Dick Harding Queensland Dick_Harding@health.qld.gov.au

20040121-003 21-Jan-04 Dick Harding Queensland Dick_Harding@health.qld.gov.au

20040121-004 21-Jan-04 Gavin Tong CIHI GTong@c

20040121-006 21-Jan-04 Dick Harding Queensland Dick_Harding@health.qld.gov.au

20040310-001 11-Mar-04 Joan Miller Siemens joan.miller@siemens.com

20040312-001 12-Mar-04 Michael Siemens michael.cassidy@siemens.com

20040503-001 03-May-04 Harry jtcase@ucdavis.edu

20040503-002 03-May-04 Jim Case American jtcase@ucdavis.edu

20040506-001 06-May-04 Karen Van HL7 HQ karenvan@hl7.org

20040506-004 06-May-04 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

20040506-005 06-May-04 Freida Hall Oracle freida.hall@med.va.gov

20040827-001 27-Aug-04 Joann Larson Keiser joann.larson@kp.org

20050127-001 27-Jan-05 Dale Nelson dale@zed-logic.com

Certification Exam upgrade to 2.4 without notification to Y closed Closed.

Posting minutes to web Y Complete

9/10/03 - Update co-chair handbook and communicate naming

3 Improvement Suggestions (see attachment which includes Y closed

Item 1) Ken to follow up with Gunnar to determine if this can

Item 2) pending Y closed

Item 3) pending Y closed

HL7 Declarations Page (3 items see attachment) - Item 1 Y closed

9/10/03 - Joan to follow up with Glen re: closing

Item 3 - 9/10/03 - Joan to follow up with Glen Y closed