Minutes: October 8, 2015 Preparatory conference call

1. Welcome & Apologies

RTU welcomed the group. PHE arrived later in the meeting.
RTU said the purpose of the meeting was to set the scene for the upcoming face-to-face meeting in Montevideo.

2. Introductions

RTU introduced himself and noted that the group would focus on, among other things, the concept model of SNOMED CT and short-term changes related to that, as well as how IHTSDO might institutionalize quality assurance methods. There was a round of introductions.

3. Terms of Reference

RTU explained that the AGs would be somewhat different than Standing Committees. They would not be decision-making bodies, and consensus would not be required. They existed to advise the Management Team members. RTU said his role was to ask the right questions and get information from the AG members that would help him make the right decisions.

DKA asked about the relationship between the AGs and the Management Board (MB). RTU said there was no direct relationship, and the AG was about running the business and managing SNOMED CT, not about IHTSDO governance. If the MB wanted information from the AG, it would presumably ask the CEO, the CEO would ask the AG chair, and the AG chair would ask the AG. RTU said that if AG members wanted information to go to the MB, they might mention it to the Member Forum, the Vendor Liaison Forum, or the CEO and ask one of them to raise it with the MB. RTU then noted that the travel expenses of the group and possible project funding would be offered by IHTSDO. He said the AG members were there as individuals, not representatives of organizations. The AG members were there to help make decisions in the best interests of SNOMED and users of SNOMED.

RTU said the AG members were welcome to bring items to the agenda, although he could not guarantee that the AG would be able to spend time on any particular topic brought forward.
All AGs were required to make work plans, RTU noted.

IHTSDO had 5 or 6 projects in the content area that could have an influence on the concept model, RTU said, so the AG was not starting from scratch and would work through those in Montevideo. Changes to the strategic and operational level would require consensus from RTU, Jim Case and Ian Green.

RTU said that the group might want to request a budget, although it was not obliged to do any work. That could be a topic of discussion in Montevideo. He stressed that he did not want to be in the position of asking AG members to do any work and the members not being able to do it due to a lack of bandwidth.

4. Conflicts of Interest

RTU asked group members to declare their interests.

GRE: had been a contractor to CAP and IHTSDO for many years. Topics related to QA processes or a release could be a potential conflict of interest.

DKA: Member of another terminology development organization from Scandinavia. He and RCO were also participating in an EU project about investing in SNOMED CT and other terminologies.

RCO: Suggested setting up a registry for interests (that are potential conflicts). RTU agreed that it would be set up.

MLA: He said his organization worked closely with the NRC, had a commercial server, and had an open source Apache 2 component.

[PHE joined at that time.]

RED: part of NEHTA and participated in HL7 Working Groups.

RTU said that everyone probably had interests related to SNOMED and other organizations. AG members’ perspectives, experience and expertise were very useful to the group, he said, so he was not concerned about interests but asked group members not to exploit them.

5. Face-to-Face Meetings

RTU said the group had an option of 2 face-to-face meetings per year. There was an assumption that they would take place at the biannual conferences in April and October, but alternatives could be considered.
ARG noted that he was a General Assembly member so he would prefer timing that did not conflict with his GA duties. He suggested the Sunday before the conference.

6. Agenda items for Montevideo

1. Process for interacting with the Editorial AG and other AGs
2. Review existing work: Review the output from the Palo Alto group
3. Existing models; scope to be determined, but will include pharma, substance, products, anatomy; focus on practical solutions.
a. Documents to review
4. Terms of Reference review (and broader rules)
5. Work plan for the group

RTU said there are changes proposed in the concept model and the AG would need to consider those by some TBD criteria. The AG would receive requests from Jim Case or Ian Green to consider some parts of the concept model changes. RTU had already had some basic discussions with Jim and Ian about how it might work. 

RTU said he also wanted the AG to do a review of existing work and to pick up the recommendations coming out of the Palo Alto group. There might also be some work left over from the Implementation Committee or Technical Committee that would be relevant to the Modeling AG and useful for the AG to continue.

RTU noted that for many years there have been a number of use cases, conflicting requirements, dependencies, etc. around, and RTU had discussed it with Kent Spackman before Kent’s retirement, but some of it might have changed, and some AG members might have been involved and therefore able to help.

RCO asked that the Terms of Reference be added to the Montevideo agenda. RTU added it.

7. Any other business

None.

8. Date of the next meeting

Next meeting: in Montevideo on 26th October in the afternoon. Again in the morning of 27th Oct. 
RED said he would attend by teleconference.

The call ended after 57 minutes.