2017-02-08 SGB Conference Call

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637		Date: 2017-02-08 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee	Name
x	Calvin Beebe
Regrets	Lorraine Constable
x	Russ Hamm
x	Tony Julian
x	Paul Knapp
x	Austin Kreisler
x	Wayne Kubick
	Mary Kay McDaniel
	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

• Agenda review
• Review Minutes of 2017-02-01 SGB_Conference_Call
• Action Items
  • Anne to look up position descriptions written for FMG/FGB on cochair list
  • Add discussion of separation of concerns precept to TSC agenda
  • Lorraine/Wayne will review the Privacy Cookbook document to gauge impact and report back
  • Austin will go through the Project Services' "Introducing New Processes" document and report back
  • Calvin to put together a state diagram of what changes are allowed for Normative vs. other ballot types
• Discussion Topics
  • Review of Position Descriptions and Timing
  • Develop official policy regarding separation of concerns
  • Further discussion on levels of standards/changing ballot levels
• Parking Lot
  • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
  • Vocabulary precepts
  • General precepts
    • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
  • Levels of standards
  • Separation of concerns
  • Ownership of content
  • ISM
  • Ownership of content
  • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't

Minutes

• Review Minutes of 2017-02-01 SGB_Conference_Call
  • MOTION to approve: Austin/Calvin
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action Items
  • Anne to look up position descriptions written for FMG/FGB on cochair list
  • Add discussion of separation of concerns precept to TSC agenda
  • Lorraine/Wayne will review the Privacy Cookbook document to gauge impact and report back
  • Austin will go through the Project Services' "Introducing New Processes" document and report back
  • Calvin to put together a state diagram of what changes are allowed for Normative vs. other ballot types
• Discussion Topics
  • Disposition of negatives
    • Wayne sent out draft of advisement regarding addressing negatives. People have a different idea of what the dispositions mean. "Not Related" seems to be the appropriate response to the issues under discussion. Paul counters that the definition states that it is referring to material that isn't there currently but may be in the future. Austin states it's not perfect, but it's the closest thing we have and we should add a new disposition in the future. Recommendation is that when you're declaring something out of scope on a non-normative ballot, you use not related for the time being. If normative, it makes it a substantive change that forces it back to ballot. Wayne will add a statement that the SGB will look into adding a new disposition. Guidance for FHIR is that items should be flagged as not related.
  • Further discussion on levels of standards/changing ballot levels
    • Reviewed Calvin's slides. Transitions to Comment from all ballot levels but Normative are clear. Austin notes a two week extension timeframe not listed. Also should add post-ballot/reconciliation timeframe. If normative ballot doesn't reach quorum, you can drop to Comment or leave it open another two weeks (rarely happens). Should add that step in to the slide or make it a footnote. According to this diagram, even with the extra line of extension stretching for lack of quorum, there is nothing here that says we can redefine during a ballot period. Is it reasonable to do so? Austin: Reasonable if it's not normative. Co-chairs have responsibility to ballot negatively in the situation that there is something horribly flawed. Guidance on this should be folded back into the GOM or Essential Requirements.
      • Committee can pull something from ballot up until opening
      • After opening, you can strategically negative ballot
      • Question remains over when you can drop ballot level; need to discuss with Lynn. Paul suggests you can do it up until final content; from final content on, that would need CTO approval. Austin states we could create a window for everything but normative to escalate these things. CTO could even potentially approve dropping the level after ballot open. Need to determine what can happen between NIB submission, ballot open, and ballot close. Also should discuss normative dropping to STU.
        • ACTION: Anne to ask Lynn to join next week
  • Vocabulary governance PSS
    • Austin states that SGB should be a cosponsor since it's a governance-related project.
      • MOTION that SGB should cosponsor the project: Austin/Russ
      • VOTE: All in favor
      • ACTION: Paul to send request out to co-chairs of Vocab
  • Review of Position Descriptions and Timing
  • Develop official policy regarding separation of concerns
    • Briefly discussed with TSC. Discussion revealed preference for SGB being decision maker and CTO being mediator. Note that ARB is TSC's methodology group. Question regarding HTA - should they be relocated? Currently a board committee.
      • PRECEPT: Where separation of concerns have been implemented in a product family, an individual should not be a cochair of more than one of the appropriate governance, management, or methodology groups. Exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis by the TSC.
      • MOTION to accept precept: Austin/Wayne
      • VOTE: All in favor
• Parking Lot
  • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
  • Vocabulary precepts
  • General precepts
    • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
  • Levels of standards
  • Separation of concerns
  • Ownership of content
  • ISM
  • Ownership of content
  • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2017-02-15 SGB Conference Call

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved