Technical Action Committee Updates and Discussion

Hi @Jennifer, it is rather unfortunate that I could not make this week meeting, but I got on the room at 3:15pm and it hasn’t started, I thought it was post-poned.

Hi @morrisng! I think I see the issue: the call is at 3pm UTC | 4pm Abuja. I’ll update the announcements moving forward. In the meantime, I hope you’ll check out the survey and join us this coming Friday to review + discuss.

@jennifer @mksd regarding the survery, I assume we can think of the 0 to 2 rankings as ranking for priority?

Because 0 is “not wanted/needed” and I suspect as I go through the list there is going to be very little that I truly don’t want but there’s a lot that I consider lowest on the priority scale.

Sorry if I’m being a little too literal… :slight_smile:

Take care, Mark

@mogoodrich I have tried to keep it simple with the 0-1-2 choices, but feel free to put in any real number between 0 and 2, I think @angshuonline did that with some items. That’ll work for the averages :slight_smile:

It seems like some really good discussion. I wonder whether the strategic questions (whether we build something or integrate other work, whether we simply deliver a tool/platform or a fully working EHR) are sufficiently different from the functionality or coding rows that they deserve a separate discussion/ranking? I would want us to include historical perspective on that discussion which cannot be captured in a simple ranking (of the strategic questions)

Yes, @akanter, there was some really good discussion - and it’s not over!

Key points and action items are below. There are now more detailed notes and if you want to listen to the whole thing, here is a link to the recording.

Key Points

Technical Priorities

  • A core set of common priorities emerged from the ranking survey.
  • For strategic discussions, this is more about ranking the discussion topics in terms of priority.
  • There are many in the community who want a full EMR solution/product. Working on something that large may not be the best use of the TAC
  • A way to balance this may be to focus on the core and enabling collaboration on the broader EMR functionality that the community wants
  • The TAC needs to define what is meant by core

DIAL Catalytic Grant

  • No clear scopes emerged that can be done for $15k.
  • Consider submitting for assistance with an interoperability strategy.


We didn’t get far into this, but @mseaton posed some great questions:

Action Items

  • Publish the rankings to the broader community for additional review/feedback
  • Review the items and indicate what they consider core

@mksd @ibacher @mseaton @dkayiwa, please chime in with anything that you’d like to call out or clarify.

Here are the key points and decisions from today’s TAC meeting:

Patient Level Indicator Reporting

COVID-19 Response

Tech Radar

  • Burke gave a five minute overview
  • Those on the call voted on a date to update the Tech Radar. This poll is still open!

Technical Vision Briefs

  • @burke and @jennifer propose following the same format as @burke’s Amazing future post
  • Use these to drive work towards the vision by breaking them into independent chunks of work, what they would deliver, and how they work together
  • Proposed prioritization:
    • ETL
    • FHIR
    • Fellowship
    • MF
    • Concept & Metadata Management (OCL)
    • Configuration Management

Technical Roadmap

  • @burke owes us a Talk post
  • We brainstormed some initial ideas to include in the post.

Please see the notes and/or listen to the recording for more details.

For notes and recordings from previous meeting, see the TAC’s Wiki page.

Have questions or comments? Please share them here or join our next meeting on Friday, 20 March 2020 at 3pm UTC.

@mksd @mseaton @jdick @dkayiwa @wanyee @janflowers @akanter @aojwang @morrisng @ssmusoke