This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-12-13 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2017-12-13 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Calvin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| x | Russ Hamm | ||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| Regrets | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| Regrets | Rik Smithies | ||
| Sandy Stuart | |||
| x | Suzanne Webb, Guest | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-12-06_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Paul to ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message
- Paul to verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Anne to add review of edited Product Life Cycle document to TSC agenda
- Approved. Need to determine where to post.
- Anne to add to FGB agenda, then forward to FMG/other management groups
- Anne to add Mixed Ballot Precept to precepts section of wiki page
- Elect replacement chair for Austin
- Recruit new member
- Discussion Topics
- Further review of definition of "Standards Under Review (SUR)" definition from the Standards Privacy Impact Assessment - Suzanne Webb, guest
- Backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families
- Separation of concerns re: FHIR
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- New Orleans Agenda
- Short and Long Term Work Plan
- Precept on how to bring in large projects
- Parking Lot
- Review GOM with respect to where SGB and precepts should be reflected
- Review Publishing M&C updates regarding dual roles
- 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
- 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
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Levels of standards
- Separation of concerns
- Ownership of content
- ISM
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-12-06_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Thom
- VOTE: Lorraine abstains. Remaining in favor.
- Action Items
- Paul to ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message
- Carry forward
- Paul to verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Carry forward
- Anne to add review of edited Product Life Cycle document to TSC agenda
- Approved. Need to determine where to post.
- Anne to add to FGB agenda, then forward to FMG/other management groups
- Anne to add Mixed Ballot Precept to precepts section of wiki page
- Complete
- Elect replacement chair for Austin
- Recruit new member
- Paul to ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message
- Discussion Topics
- Further review of definition of "Standards Under Review (SUR)" definition from the Standards Privacy Impact Assessment - Suzanne Webb, guest
- SGB has a couple of issues with the SUR information. One question is that SUR is not an HL7 term that we use in our processes. Challenges regarding how this relates to our methodology and issues with setting policy. The specification talks about process that is appropriate when we're looking at applying a standard to an implementation context. Looking at this when you're writing the original spec is not always appropriate. The process is useful and appropriate but the context in which we're trying to apply is problematic. Suzanne: Does HL7 have a definition of a SUR? Calvin: Are we really wanting to talk about SURs or standards under development at HL7? Paul: Is it during the ballot period? Lorraine: The appropriate timing for a threat assessment is when you're using the standard in an implementation. Wayne: We need to redefine this because we don't consider anything published when it's being balloted. It has to happen before it goes out to ballot. Lorraine: And most of the time, that's the wrong time to do a threat assessment. Thom: The term is specification under review, not standard. There could be actions that are required at the PSS stage, but overall it's not clear when and by who. Paul: Instructions seem to be written from an unusual context - for example, no specification will contain PII as referenced in the document.
- What do we think next steps are? Paul: SUR is not defined within the document itself. That would not be a substantive change. Also there are difficulties understanding context in the content; perhaps that could be called out at the top. There is no policy to say that one must follow the cookbook. Our first hope is that the cookbook is a clearer document. Wayne: We did an assessment of this a long time ago. The policy should not be in the document. We should keep the document but don't import policy through it. Perhaps we should have a precept that we don't impart policy through documents such as this. Suzanne: I can take this back to the WG and reword, confirming that there is no policy listed within the document, and clarify where in HL7 process the SUR falls. Paul: Is an STU being implemented still a standard under review? Calvin: You probably don't want to wait until STU implementation - you probably want to use it as it's being developed. Thom: The PII issue is not clear either.
- ACTION: Suzanne will take the document back with the SGB comments and confirm there is no policy in the document and that the flavor of the document is more how to do it. Will ensure that the SUR definition is clearly defined. Will find a place where it seems appropriate that the SUR is in HL7 process. Will bring it back here for review.
- Further review of definition of "Standards Under Review (SUR)" definition from the Standards Privacy Impact Assessment - Suzanne Webb, guest
- CIMI Management Group invitation letter
- Reviewed invitation from PLA.
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Lorraine
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Anne to forward to marketing/communications to send to whole membership
- Updated SGB M&C and generic product family M&C
- ACTION: Anne to post in Templates section of website, and add a section under SGB Guidance on the wiki and add link
- Substantive change definition
- MOTION to close the substantive change project: Lorraine/Calvin
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Anne to ask Dave to close project
- Cancel 27th
- Next time: New Orleans agenda, candidates for replacement cochair
- ACTION: Anne to check with Mary Ann re: moving SGB to Q2 on Sunday
- Backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families
- Separation of concerns re: FHIR
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- New Orleans Agenda
- Short and Long Term Work Plan
- Precept on how to bring in large projects
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
