This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-05-12 SGB WGM Agenda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes Location: Borox |
Date: 2017-05-12 Time: 9:00 AM | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Calvin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| Russ Hamm | |||
| x | Tony Julian | ||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Mary Kay McDaniel | ||
| x | Ken McCaslin | ||
| x | Rik Smithies | ||
| x | Kathleen Connor | ||
| x | Richard Deacon Hughes | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-05-07_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Action Items
- Wayne will forward info from Grahame on variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- Write/post precept on vitality assessment
- Send out to SGB provider role nomination solicitation to cochair list with nominations due May 26.
- Discussion Topics
- Plans & Priorities
- Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
- Discussion over publishing having dual roles and how to handle in M&C.
- Review PIC document on balloting best practices
- Parking Lot
- Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
- PSS approval process: managing unresponsive cosponsors
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Mixed ballot content issue
- 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
- Austin chairing
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-05-07_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Action Items
- Wayne will forward info from Grahame on variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- Write/post precept on vitality assessment
- Send out to SGB provider role nomination solicitation to co-chair list with nominations due May 26.
- Changed date to June 16th
- MOTION to approve edited document: Calvin/Paul
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Anne to send cochairs list copying Paul and Austin
- Changed date to June 16th
- Discussion Topics
- Plans & Priorities
- Lorraine: We need to sort out how we document precepts and how we’re going to communicate them. Wayne: We’re talking about moving these documents online. The cochair handbook will have changes listed. Web pages is the general plan. Calvin: Should we go back and just look at what the patterns are and bring them back as input? Austin: Searchability is key. Lorraine: Might want to look at tooling strategy to solve it. Austin suggests that new precepts become tracker items for each management group. Calvin: Management groups are focusing on product families; their answer to how they’re implementing the precept goes into something that every project can access. May also involve methodology. Lorraine: Not all of our precepts will be things that the product family manages. Paul: So our resources get directed to the appropriate body, who will take the precept and turn it into the procedures to use. We need a common place where all those procedures are organized by audience. Wayne: That’s listed in our Confluence requirements. Our job at SGB is to route it.
- ACTION: We need to revisit our current precepts and add who our precepts apply to and how they are to be implemented.
- Lorraine: We need to sort out how we document precepts and how we’re going to communicate them. Wayne: We’re talking about moving these documents online. The cochair handbook will have changes listed. Web pages is the general plan. Calvin: Should we go back and just look at what the patterns are and bring them back as input? Austin: Searchability is key. Lorraine: Might want to look at tooling strategy to solve it. Austin suggests that new precepts become tracker items for each management group. Calvin: Management groups are focusing on product families; their answer to how they’re implementing the precept goes into something that every project can access. May also involve methodology. Lorraine: Not all of our precepts will be things that the product family manages. Paul: So our resources get directed to the appropriate body, who will take the precept and turn it into the procedures to use. We need a common place where all those procedures are organized by audience. Wayne: That’s listed in our Confluence requirements. Our job at SGB is to route it.
- Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
- Group reviews Austin’s draft of GOM update for “Considered for Future Use.” Discussion over how to handle items that are within scope but aren’t going to be dealt with now (not covered in initial draft). Also need to narrow down the Not Related category. Need to accurately describe each situation – Not Related has become a catch-all. Lorraine suggests Out of Current Scope as one option. Lorraine: if it’s out of current scope, we have Not Related/no change, Persuasive, or Considered for Future Use. If it’s in scope, we have Persuasive, Not Persuasive, or Considered for Future Use. ANSI allows negative, negative without comment, and affirmative. We have to map to those categories. A negative has to go through our process for dealing with negatives. Considered for Future Use is a flavor of Negative. Calvin: If the group reviewing the comment got a comment that was out of scope and agreed with it, don’t we face a similar issue to something that was in scope and we threw out of scope? The stated scope of the ballot is a boundary. If somebody is allowed through consensus of the reconciliation process to put something in that scope that wasn’t, doesn’t that change scope making it substantive? The resolution becomes a substantive change. Discussion that there has to be a way to indicate that the scope is broken, and those things can’t be declared Not Related. Calvin: We operate with a false sense of separability. Tony: Ballot submitters should also do a better job at declaring their scope. Wayne diagrams negative comments as In Scope or Not in Scope. In Scope – either Deal With It or Defer; if Deal With It, it is Persuasive or Not Persuasive. If Not in Scope, it is either Not Relevant, or deferred as Useful in Future. Made edits to document.
- MOTION to approve as edited and revised: Lorraine/Wayne
- VOTE: All in favor
- Group reviews Austin’s draft of GOM update for “Considered for Future Use.” Discussion over how to handle items that are within scope but aren’t going to be dealt with now (not covered in initial draft). Also need to narrow down the Not Related category. Need to accurately describe each situation – Not Related has become a catch-all. Lorraine suggests Out of Current Scope as one option. Lorraine: if it’s out of current scope, we have Not Related/no change, Persuasive, or Considered for Future Use. If it’s in scope, we have Persuasive, Not Persuasive, or Considered for Future Use. ANSI allows negative, negative without comment, and affirmative. We have to map to those categories. A negative has to go through our process for dealing with negatives. Considered for Future Use is a flavor of Negative. Calvin: If the group reviewing the comment got a comment that was out of scope and agreed with it, don’t we face a similar issue to something that was in scope and we threw out of scope? The stated scope of the ballot is a boundary. If somebody is allowed through consensus of the reconciliation process to put something in that scope that wasn’t, doesn’t that change scope making it substantive? The resolution becomes a substantive change. Discussion that there has to be a way to indicate that the scope is broken, and those things can’t be declared Not Related. Calvin: We operate with a false sense of separability. Tony: Ballot submitters should also do a better job at declaring their scope. Wayne diagrams negative comments as In Scope or Not in Scope. In Scope – either Deal With It or Defer; if Deal With It, it is Persuasive or Not Persuasive. If Not in Scope, it is either Not Relevant, or deferred as Useful in Future. Made edits to document.
- Plans & Priorities
- Discussion over publishing having dual roles and how to handle in M&C.
- They were asked to figure out how to do this. Lorraine notes they have a Slack channel that they’re using. Will review their M&C once it is complete.
- ACTION: Add to parking lot for future review.
- Review PIC document on balloting best practices
- Mixed ballot content issue
- They were asked to figure out how to do this. Lorraine notes they have a Slack channel that they’re using. Will review their M&C once it is complete.
- SGB to join ARB on 2017-06-06
- Next meeting: 2017-05-31, same time
- Review remaining parking lot items
- ACTION: Anne to gather all principles and precepts and publish on Wiki by mid-June
- High level review of vocabulary and put together a plan for addressing the vocabulary precepts
- Close out the draft boilerplate M&C for management groups
- ACTION: Tony to find vitality assessment slide deck
- ACTION: Anne to complete meeting room request – Q3 on Sunday and Q1 and Q2 on Friday
- Review remaining parking lot items
- Issues around Privacy Assessment Cookbook
- Kathleen Connor to take back questions. The term Standards Under Review (SUR) is not used by HL7.
- Parking Lot
- Write/post precept on vitality assessment (remove from action items)
- Next steps on Substantivity (from ARB)
- How do we deal with making sure that WGs involve those whose content domain they’re touching? (CIMI and Pharmacy and Lab models)
- Review Mission and Charter
- PSS approval process: managing unresponsive parties
- Discussion that new tooling will help identify these issues earlier. Discussion over specific examples. Projects need to be viewed as cross functional and take those groups into account who have interest in it; their participation should be supported; and their input should be accommodated. SGB recognizes this as an impact to standards development but it is owned by TSC. Can propose precept to TSC.
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Mixed ballot content
- ACTION: Paul to write precept on mixed ballot content
- ACTION: Find principles document
- 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
- Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't
- Do we need to create precepts or guidance about those types of groups? Not sure what our role is here. REMOVE
- Finalize mission and charter boilerplate
- ACTION: Austin to update
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
