2016-09-19 FGB WGM Agenda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: Constellation F |
Date: 2016-09-19 Time: 7:00 AM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = Chair plus 2 | yes/no | |||||||
| Co-Chair/CTO | Members | |||||||
| Woody Beeler | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Grahame Grieve | David Hay | |||
| Dave Shaver | x | Ewout Kramer | Cecil Lynch (ArB) | x | Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) | |||
| x | Wayne Kubick | . | Calvin Beebe | . | ||||
| observers/guests | ||||||||
| Anne W., scribe | ||||||||
Minutes
- Roll call -
- Guests: Tim Blake, Richard Cavanagh
- Agenda Review
- Grahame adds to topics to the agenda:
- FHIR Certification
- Scope
- Grahame adds to topics to the agenda:
- Approve minutes of 20160829 FGB concall
- Action Item review:
- Wayne and Lorraine to present overall Github maintenance policies to EST on 2016-09-06
- Wayne went to EST and they had no issues. They are getting an HL7 account set up. Grahame states there is an account set up already.
- Wayne and Lorraine to present overall Github maintenance policies to EST on 2016-09-06
- Discussion Topics
- Certification
- Grahame: Have been working on an exam with a group of contributors. Intended to be difficult, so it’s open book; access to spec and at least one server. Rolled out to cochairs to field test; have had good feedback. Working on handing it over to education. Their intent is that it will be a formal certification with a designation, and this requires some formalization. Should be in production early next year. Discussion over governance of the content. Eventually will likely be created/governed by a certification board.
- Scope
- Question is what’s not in scope? We now have a core of clinical process and tentacles are stretching into research, financial, etc. Yesterday met with FDA and EPA about extending to chemical ontology. Need to be more clear about boundaries with perhaps a process and criteria. HTSSP defined a scope for US HL7 years ago but we’re already broader than that. Wayne: Could we define it around participants? Who should define this? Lloyd notes that the scope evolves with people’s interest and expertise. Wayne notes that might not be the best way to define it – should be formal parameters. We’ve always said it should be related to healthcare. Wayne notes TSC discussed yesterday what we do and how we do it – what does HL7 do best? When we talk about scope we talk about what we do well.
- Austin arrives
- Wayne: We have to do what we can realistically and sensibly support. Lorraine: perhaps there is a set of guidelines we could develop to determine if it’s in or out. Lloyd: Makes sense to talk about process if we’re going to take on an area that we haven’t historically been in, we need to determine if it fits in our core mission statement, where it fits in the organization. It’s a question of scope within FHIR and scope within HL7. Lloyd: Should come in with the sponsorship of an existing WG with proposal of how we get the right people involved with the right capacity. Lorraine: How do we catch the need for the scope? Wayne: We should look at the domain WGs as a reflection of scope.
- Rik Smithies, Paul Knapp arrive
- Lloyd: It could even be a trial process. Discussion about governance over that process.
- SGB joins.
- Topics: No particular topics. Are reviewing the precepts passed to SGB from FGB. Wayne: We do have to look forward to a time when we perhaps absorb FGB into SGB. Lorraine notes the guidelines provide for it to remain a task force of the SGB. Paul: We review yearly if FGB is continuing to address FHIR-specific issues. Paul notes that even the issue of scope happens across families.
- Next FHIR ballot/challenges with materials at varying maturity levels
- Lloyd brought this topic to TSC last night. Need to have a process in place to ballot mixed material. Also explained that we don’t want to use spreadsheets as a mechanism, so other options are being explored. The third topic was a general question about necessity of balloting. Substantive things are coming more from outside of the ballot and less in the ballot. Discussed alternative ways of meeting ANSI’s requirements while doing do diligence on the content. The outcome was a feeling that if there is to be a shift in HL7’s ballot processes, that needs to be one that engages the organization as a whole from the outset, rather than one where FHIR goes off and takes the lead on something. We will put together a PSS on refactoring the ballot process with a semi-concrete plan within. We will iterate it a few times with TSC and then seek interested parties from the steering divisions in January and trial with something small in May. Paul: The issue as presented was could we, instead of balloting, do continuous review. Lloyd: this time around 15% of comments came in via tracker. PSS is expected to be sponsored by FMG and cosponsored by FGB and SGB. Also have to involved EST and Publishing. Austin: And steering divisions as proxies for the WGs. Ideal timing would be to get it together and in front of the steering divisions in January. Austin: Given the DSTU update process, you may not have to go back to DSTU ballot. Need to look at the current STU update process and evaluate it against our needs.
- ACTION: Start work on the PSS and the proposed process. Austin suggests two PSSs.
- Lloyd brought this topic to TSC last night. Need to have a process in place to ballot mixed material. Also explained that we don’t want to use spreadsheets as a mechanism, so other options are being explored. The third topic was a general question about necessity of balloting. Substantive things are coming more from outside of the ballot and less in the ballot. Discussed alternative ways of meeting ANSI’s requirements while doing do diligence on the content. The outcome was a feeling that if there is to be a shift in HL7’s ballot processes, that needs to be one that engages the organization as a whole from the outset, rather than one where FHIR goes off and takes the lead on something. We will put together a PSS on refactoring the ballot process with a semi-concrete plan within. We will iterate it a few times with TSC and then seek interested parties from the steering divisions in January and trial with something small in May. Paul: The issue as presented was could we, instead of balloting, do continuous review. Lloyd: this time around 15% of comments came in via tracker. PSS is expected to be sponsored by FMG and cosponsored by FGB and SGB. Also have to involved EST and Publishing. Austin: And steering divisions as proxies for the WGs. Ideal timing would be to get it together and in front of the steering divisions in January. Austin: Given the DSTU update process, you may not have to go back to DSTU ballot. Need to look at the current STU update process and evaluate it against our needs.
- Overlaps between FHIR project and other product lines (C-CDA on FHIR IG, CDA logical model, V2 logical model and mapping work) - need governance over material that appears to be shared between product lines
- Grahame: We have a steadily growing stream of work that is joint with other product families. How does that fit in with the business model of the product family plan? It’s shared work. The groups are coming to FHIR and doing shared work. Lorraine: it’s both governance and management. The CDA stuff is an issue because the management is de facto Structured Docs because the CDA product management group formation has been put on hold.
- SGB will take a look at the governance issues around joint materials.
- ACTION: add to Thursday agenda for discussion as time allows.
- Certification
- Adjourned at 8:11 am
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board © 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved. |
