Documentation and Testing Meeting 2010-08-25
Date: August 25, 2010
Time: 2pm - 3pm EST
Janet Campbell, Didi Davis, John Moehrke, Nageshwara Bashyam, Karen Witting, David Tao, Douglas Pratt, Andy Oram, Noam Arzt, Will Ross, Arien Malec, Uvinie Hettiaratchy, Caitlin Ryan
Actions from this Week
||Due Date |
||Email Janet if interested in reviewing the NHIN Direct Overview document in a Live Meeting format.
Version E, mark-up on your own, and then the group will talk through mark-ups.
||Janet Campbell, Overview authors
||Schedule separate call for XDD discussion.
||Take on Content Security document this week.
||If interested in editing Content Security document, let Arien know or sign up on the wiki by putting name under “editors.”
||Content Security authors
||Add “Contributors” section to Documentation Priorities page.
||Be an author/editor but not “owner” of the FAQ project.
||Continue to develop the Deployment Models document.
||Clarify the difference between “owners” and “authors” in the Documentation Priorities.
||Designate status of all documents in the Progress Tracker.
Actions from last Week (August 11, 2010)
||Due Date |
||Form plans to work with other workgroups for last ½ hour of “-a-thons” time on Tuesday morning of Face to Face, will touch base with Brian Behlendorf
||Will draft higher level policy guide and put out a call to people who want to get involved
||Write abstract for XDD developers’ guide
||Develop a list of documents the WG wants printed in advance of next week’s Face to Face meeting
||Will own Content Security for Simple Heath Transport. Will write abstract and start a wiki page.
||Will use the wiki page to start reviewing others’ work and offer comments and will use the mailing list if they want their documents reviewed.
· Suggested new process for review of documents.
(1) At weekly WG meeting the WG will select one or two documents to focus on for the following week.
(2) A small group of invested individuals will work to finalize each selected document.
The group consists of the original author and a core group of editors.
(3) The author-editors group submits the document back to the Documentation and Testing WG at the next week’s meeting for feedback and suggestions.
(4) After the document is approved by the WG it is submitted to the Implementation Group.
· The big changes in this model compared to past models are:
o more official ownership over documents.
o establishing clear endpoints to the otherwise ongoing drafting of documents.
Round the Room on new review model
||· Essential need for communication across WGs. |
· Need to make sure we have the right touch points.
||· Clarifying, this model offers better ways to get the final sign off on documents? |
· Is proposing a new process for reviewing each of the documents so that each week 1-2 documents are scheduled to be near final by the next week.
· The goal of each meeting is identifying who will look at the focus documents and then reviewing the documents from the previous week.
· Good, so establishing what everyone’s homework is between meetings.
· Virtual communication can be an obstacle to productivity.
· Has seen screen-by-screen Live Meeting scenarios work well.
· The caveat to screen-by-screen editing is that the group should only discuss the content that needs to be discussed, not spelling or punctuation errors.
· People will find they can contribute this way even if they didn’t do their homework, but it will also show them how much more they could contribute if they had done their homework.
· This method may seem tedious for the editor, but is a great way to get documents reviewed.
||· Proposed structure is good. |
||· Good idea. |
||· Two each week might be overly optimistic. |
· On the other hand, there are already 5-6 documents in just the first priority area.
· All of the work could take months at the rate of 1-2 documents/week.
||· What is the process after our WG is done with a document? |
· Should we have a more formal open comment period for people not in this WG?
· Would normally be the call for consensus process, but this has lagged recently.
· Does it suffice to just have NHIN Direct members participating?
||· Agrees with David, the pace might be an issue. |
||· No comment. |
||· Likes the structure, but notes that this is a substantial workload with lots of deadlines. |
· David is correct--WG might need to also conduct side work just to hit all target deadlines.
||· Agrees with the structure. |
· More focus helps us go faster.
· Sometimes might need special sessions or other separate programs to get the documents out faster.
· Each document would have an “owner,” either the original author or the point person who find the right people to author the document.
· The owner would run the process and have a responsibility to the rest of the WG (beyond just the co editors) to stay on top of the document.
· Then at the next meeting the owner would cover the document, its purpose, its rough organization, and establish the timeline for others to give input.
· Difficult tasks:
o finding engaged owners.
o overlap between people who want to co-edit, and being respectful of their time.
· Just uploaded new version of the NHIN Direct Overview to the wiki.
o Included scope limitations and a basic comment from David Kibbe.
· How should we move forward with this document?
· If you feel like the WG satisfied the goal of finalizing internally at the Face to Face, it could move to the Implementation Group.
· If we were able to bring together that core group of invested people this week, we could nail it down and have it ready for the IG meeting next Tuesday.
· Felt that core group of people would accurately represent the needs of the entire WG.
· Proposed that they bring to IG meeting call for consensus on Tuesday, August 31.
· -->Janet will own NHIN Direct Overview document.
o Individuals interested in helping should indicate on the wiki or else email her directly.
· Asked if the group wanted to add an additional document for the week.
· Desperately need to get the s/mime specification in good shape.
· It might not be ready for that level of process, but should be called out because there is very little activity on it at present.
· At the Face to Face the WG looked at this document but it has not entered the review process.
· Was about to suggest that the group look at the Security Overview.
· Content Security for Simple Health Transport seemed to be more fleshed out already.
· But then the XDD spec is also urgent.
o The Reference Implementation WG wants to write reference implementation on something that has no specs so far.
o At yesterday’s IG we seemed to agree we need to do something on that.
· Now there are 3 documents on the table, in addition to the NHIN Direct Overview:
o Content Security for Simple Health Transport
o NHIN Direct Security Overview
o XDD Specification
· Lots of discussion needed for XDD before it can enter the review process.
· Hopes WG can agree in principle on the direction of the document, then move it to Janet’s review process.
· Could add it to the queue of work for this WG, for discussion phase then documentation phase.
· Discussion has already been set in motion via email.
· Interested people could do in an offline discussion through conversation and edits to the wiki page.
· Would like to have a discussion rather than wiki updates.
· We need to use this call or schedule a specific call to discuss XDD.
· Need to schedule a different call.
· Need to bring in the implementation geographies that really have this problem.
· Doesn’t think there are many HIEs using XDR, so the problem might be overstated.
· Those HIEs using XDR today do have a vested interest in helping us understand what they would prefer.
· MedAllies is one HIE that uses XDR. Parag has an interest.
· Wouldn’t any NHIN Exchange node need to use XDR?
· NHIN Exchange has a spec factory of very bright people on this topic.
· If we are making decisions on behalf of them and Connect, they need to be brought in.
· There are a large number of individuals and organizations that need to be coordinated.
· Could start with a small group first.
· We should not discount the diversity of knowledge we already have.
· Dragon is on the team.
· Redwood MedNet uses a Connect footprint.
· So this group has some knowledge already.
· There is a difference between XDR and XDFar.
· The issue might just be a minor concern.
· WG should start the discussion, come up with good proposal, and then downstream discussions should go nicely.
· The XDD team can be Parag, David, Karen, Vassil, Arien, John, and Janet.
· There should also be an independent call.
· -->Arien’s team will assist with scheduling the call.
· -->Arien will take on Content Security document this week.
· For the Content Security document there is no core group of editors yet.
· -->If interested, let Arien know or sign up on the wiki by putting name under “editors.”
· Editing is different from being involved in the discussion.
-->Will add “Contributors” section to Documentation Priorities page.
· -->Email Janet if interested in reviewing the NHIN Direct Overview document in a Live Meeting format.
· -->The homework is to read Version E, mark-up on your own, and then the group will talk through mark-ups.
· Next, WG has received a request from the Imp Geos WG to create an Implementation FAQ page.
· Have not received questions or answers from Imp Geos WG yet.
· Called for volunteers to own the FAQ page, especially people already connected to pilot projects.
· Are there FAQs about deploying?
· Yes, people implementing pilots are asking questions.
· Looking for someone who is willing to start that document by guessing what FAQs might be or by approaching Imp Geos WG to find out what the questions are.
· Suggested that the right process might be to ask Imp Geos WG to create list of questions.
· Clarified the titles associate with working on a document:
o Owner = person most invested in the overall success of a document.
o Editors= people who are not doing the coordination but are equally committed to being an active participant in the process, are scheduling meetings and working outside of the weekly WG call, and possibly co-authoring.
o Contributors= people who read and give suggestions.
· Suggested “editors” be called “authors.”
· -->Can be an author/editor but not “owner.”
· -->Will clarify the difference between “owners” and “authors” in the Documentation Priorities table.
· For this week the WG will focus on Security Specs, the Overview, the XDD group will start moving, and the WG will call to Imp Geos WG for a list of FAQs.
· Also, there is a document on deployment model artifacts which lays out different ideas of how NHIN Direct might actually work in practice.
o John, is that still being authored?
· Yes, the last touch was Janet’s at the Face to Face.
· Has not yet filled in models C-E.
·-->Will continue to develop the deployment models document.
· At our next meeting we will review these documents.
· We can try to send the Overview document out to this WG before presenting to the IG on Tuesday.
· At the next meeting WG can go through the same process again: review documents from previous week, identify documents to focus on for the next week.
· Anything else?
· Any need for cross-group collaboration?
· Just to clarify, to get involved contact:
o Arien for Security.
o Janet for Overview.
o Arien for XDD.
· The new wiki Progress Tracker allows anyone to know the status of the documents and when things are ready for review.
· -->Please provide feedback on the status of your documents so Imp Geos WG can start looking over the documents as they are ready.