2016-01-15 SGB WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 Standards Governance Board Meeting Minutes

Location: Columbia 36

Date: 2016-01-15
Time: 11:00 AM PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Paul Knapp Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + X yes/no
Co chairs x Paul Knapp x Calvin Beebe
ex-officio x Ken McCaslin . John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Lorraine Constable x Russ Hamm x Anne W., scribe
Regrets Tony Julian x Austin Kreisler x Rik Smithies .
x Brian Pech, Mary Kay McDaniel, Jim Case, Pat Van Dyke, Kathleen Connor


  • Roll Call
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Establish a recurring call
    • Establish regular face to face meeting times
    • Administrivia
      • M&C
      • DMP
      • SWOT
    • FGB status and issue update
    • FHIR item from TSC, FGB
      • Ground rules for product family review process (if FGB is responsible for publishing, they need to be improved; if not, they need to be informed)
    • Precepts for when PSS are required
    • Precepts for usage/incorporation of licensed standards within HL7 standards (cross jurisdictional)
    • Questions around standing up a product family
      • Who approves standing up a product family
      • How to formally recognize a product family
      • V2 is nearly ready to be officially recognized as a product family
      • Do we move V2 management group to SGB oversight (instead of SD)?
      • Addressing privacy and security in our standards – Kathleen Connor
    • Other hot topics?


  • Addition to agenda: addressing privacy and security in our standards
  • Establish recurring call
    • Group agrees to a weekly call. Paul will send out a Doodle poll to determine time.
  • Face to face meetings
    • Decision to go with Q4 on Sunday. Discussion that the tentatively planned payer connectathon may collide with the Friday Q1/Q2 meeting. Many implications for rooms, etc. Calvin should be available for Q1/Q2.
  • Mission and Charter – may need to be revisited given the new role of FHIR product director. FGB/FMG see the product director as an ex officio member of their groups. We see FGB as a task force spun off of this committee. Grahame showed draft roles and responsibilities and he is fully responsible for publishing. CTO was a placeholder for a product director in those groups; discussion over whether that still makes sense. Ken states he doesn’t think the product directors should do governance themselves but bring governance issues to the SGB. Needs to be a separation.
  • DMP
    • Reviewed TSC DMP to use a model. Began making edits. Decision that the presiding chair does not vote.
  • FGB publishing – who is responsible? Many different answers have been received. Grahame has stated that he is responsible for publishing; not sure the product director should be responsible. Grahame is going to teach Lynn the publication process in Q2, which is a step in the right direction. Calvin: FGB does not do publishing, but governance groups in general need to have a clear understanding of its role. When we get into operations, notifications may be appropriate but should likely not be in the management decision process. What do we think a governance group is supposed to be doing; what is its scope of responsibility? Lorraine: we should look at the defined roles in the BAM. Discussion over Grahame being ex officio on both FMG and FGB. Perhaps he should be ex officio without vote. We should deal with it when we deal with that role. Calvin: wants to understand what the work of that position will be as we start to articulate boundaries. From a governance perspective he may be wearing a couple hats. We need more information from the organization before we can really comment. ACTION: check with Tony/Lynn to set up private sharing space in gforge for FGB.
  • FGB status and issue update: Lorraine has been appointed backup co-chair for Woody. She feels we should change the DMP to reflect three co-chairs. FGB has had real problems getting quorum. Mary Kay: high level discussion has been that FGB is going away at some point. Is there a plan to someday make that happen? Paul: politically we got strong pushback on removing FGB as an existing group because some people felt it was necessary due to domain specific things going on in FHIR. The inability to achieve quorum suggest otherwise. Lorraine: as we flesh out the product director role, some of the FGBs issues may move there. Brian: Grahame’s FHIR.org update stated that some of the things FMG does will move to FHIR.org. Paul: part of Grahame’s responsibility as product director is to stand up FHIR.org and the FHIR Foundation. Paul asked that someone could come to TSC to explain what this entails. Ken is concerned by the notion that the product director will shuffle everything that we do. That person should receive direction from existing organizations. Should be listening to the marketplace and champion those things to meet marketplace requirements, bringing back these issues to governance. Should not change FGB’s role. Lorraine: there are activities which are currently ascribed to FGB such as product evangelism which Grahame has said were part of his activities in FGB, which was an inappropriate place for those activities. Ken: SGB should intentionally build a bridge from FGB into SGB, and one way we could do that is to expand SGB to include FGB. That would lead to inclusion and the eventual dismantling. Paul: with these changes, lack of quorum, etc., FGB will likely run out of steam, or they’ll rally. Intention was that FGB would come in as a committee of the SGB as opposed to being a wholly separate body. Ken: it’s less confrontational, but it doesn’t lend itself to a well directed organization. Need to be intentional instead of letting it die. Need to use Lorraine and Calvin’s role on SGB to do a managed shut down. Brian: you have the structure in place already to dismantle it. Paul: we need to stand up our own structure and gain credibility and visibility before we do so.
  • Kathleen Connor joins to talk about privacy and security of our standards. VA has been research privacy and security by design. Have a database where they accumulate the standards based on those concepts. Other standards groups are starting the project off doing a privacy by design assessment. Would like to propose that we be allowed to work with the ARB and possibly SOA to come up with overarching set of these principles to incorporate into SAIF so projects are using it at the appropriate level. Lorraine: the place where you have to do the design and policy thought is when you’re designing an implementation using the standards. Traditionally that has not been our space. The challenge is in our standards development process, we’re somewhat divorced from the use. Kathleen: Offering resource and assistance as asked for by groups might also help ease some of the pushback. Calvin: you mentioned engaging with ARB, in particular with regards to SAIF specification. Is this intended to be a reballoting of the SAIF architecture? Kathleen: No, the hope is that we could perhaps reballot a piece of it. Austin: there was an intended IG for SAIF, and this could be a component of that. Calvin: my understanding is SAIF is a generic framework. IGs are how we utilize it. Is the focus about HL7 activities that build a standard, or about systems that are built using the standards? SAIF can be applied during building and implementations. Paul: those two activities need to dovetail. Lorraine: At this stage, is this informative or do you need support from us? Kathleen: we wanted to know if you felt this was a useful project and appropriate for the WGs to kick off. Lorraine: are you anticipating trying for Connectathon tracks in May? The proposals are due in three weeks. Kathleen: we wouldn’t be running a track, we would be providing test scripts. Paul: strikes me as reasonable to proceed. Calvin: submit a project proposal through the typical approval process. If some new precepts are revealed, then we would review at that point. Governance will have to carefully weigh how much the environment dictates vs. how much we govern. Austin: risk assessment is at the core of what this group is supposed to be doing.

Calvin: we need to understand how this group’s role will be effective and useful to the organization. We may determine that we’re not the right place to do something, but we can identify that we aren’t the right place and help determine what the right place is.

  • Q2
  • Russ Hamm departs
  • BAM reconciliation publication request has been submitted. ACTION: Anne to put the URL here in the minutes to the HL7_BAM_R1_I1_2015May.docx from Gforge. Reviewed the governance board responsibilities in the BAM. SGB establishes the methodology and management groups – this answers a question from PLA. Austin suggests the TSC should review on upcoming call. Could be a joint TSC/SGB call. Calvin: as we’re having to deal with these issues, we’ll need a way of sharing back and forth between team working on BAM and SGB. Need to coordinate. Discussion over reviewing and approving plans from the platform management group. Reviewed success/failure criteria. Reviewed management group responsibilities. Calvin thinks we should have an aspirational statement. Lorraine suggests that we do that as part of the criteria that we use from the PLA point of view. Paul: is there something in the SAIF we can use? Lorraine: yes, we should review the governance portion of SAIF. We could combine these things into a document regarding what we are trying to achieve, why, and how. Discussion over NIB review as an example of a process that needs to be implemented so people aren’t caught unaware. Reviewed RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed) chart. Discussion that TSC level should likely be As. So SGB establishes management and methodology groups with final approval by TSC. Calvin: it would be highly useful if we had a similar extension on this chart describing product director function to understand the responsibilities. Discussion over how HTA fits in. They morphed themselves into a governance role. Reviewed BAM table of contents.
  • Ground rules for product family review process:
    • reviewed document put forward by FGB to establish the review and approval process for product family-related projects. Calvin brings up the SBAR process –situation, background, analysis, recommendation. Austin notes the arduous layers of approval process that he noted in the Saturday TSC process. Several more layers are coming in with FMG. At some point we’re not going to be able to get projects approved; already they are falling between the cracks. Calvin: it’s a wonderful opportunity for some kind of document management system. Back to the document: the first category is the product management group would like to be able to review and approve something going into the publication process. The second category is projects that reference a product family but don’t produce artifacts but they aren’t published by them. The publishing seems to be the key differential. The only new thing here is about the NIB review. Austin: one question to ask is do we need steering division review when we have a product family management group in place? What is the inherent role of the steering division when an pfmg is in place? Perhaps we could dispense with steering divisions dealing with content. Calvin suggests laying out a current state/future state RACI diagram. If we take out SD approval, a lot of chairs wouldn’t be aware of projects until they hit the TSC. Calvin proposes that we can’t make the change yet, but if product family management groups are formed across the majority of our product families, we could entertain the change. Austin argues that once we have FHIR, 2.x and CDA, we’ve hit the majority. Lorraine: we’ve made the statement is one of the responsibilities of the pfmg is to ensure consistency, which was one the original purposes of the SD.
    • MOTION to approve the review and approval process for product family related projects by Austin; second by Lorraine. Discussion: might want to make clear that we’re approving the three bullet points in pfmg approval and pfmg review. Paul suggests separating the first bullet into two. Add another line for escalation. Edited the document.
    • VOTE: all in favor.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to Standards Governance Board

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International