This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-06-06 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2018-06-06 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Lorraine | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Russ Hamm | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| Ewout Kramer | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| Regrets | Rik Smithies | ||
| x | Sandy Stuart | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-02_SGB_Conference_Call
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-18_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Review Minutes of 2018-05-30_SGB_Conference_Call (not quorate)
- Action Items
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Anne to work on adding links on precepts page to approval minutes for each precept
- Ongoing
- Wayne and Calvin to discuss the balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR with EC
- Add redirecting ballot comments to TSC agenda
- Add vocabulary tooling and co-chair succession planning to TSC agenda
- Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
- Develop precept that you can’t have a normative artifact if it has dependencies on artifacts which aren’t themselves Normative. Run past management groups and TSC.
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- Review V2MG candidates
- Review FHIR artifact governance process
- SGB Communication Plan
- Large architectures coming in
- CIMI MG followup
- Carried forward from previous weeks:
- SGB to look at continuous maintenance for Normative standards - discuss with Karen (on vacation this week)
- Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
- Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR
- Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
- Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
- Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
- Review Mission and Charter
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Technical Alignments Between Product Families
- How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
- Precept on bringing in large projects
- Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
- Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- Parking Lot
- RDAM
- Guiding principles for tooling
- BAM guidance on process for product adoption
- Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Ownership of content
- What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-02_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Austin/Wayne
- VOTE: All in favor
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Thom
- VOTE: All in favor
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-18_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Discussion over ballot comments linked to the wrong content. Should make it clear via policy that the comments still need to go to the right place to be considered. Discussion over where/how to document. Calvin: When you have FHIR defining ballots where the ballot is a set of things at a certain ballot status, and somebody puts a comment in to that ballot – if it transfers to something in that same ballot, is that different than a transfer to something outside of that ballot? Paul; FHIR has a single specification with artifacts at different levels; may do multiple ballots on the diverse specification. Calvin: Do these rules vary depending on if the WGs were in the same technical ballot? Will have to know the boundaries of transfer. We need the solution or software to track this. Need to be able to track the provenance/workflow. Austin wonders if FMG has a grip on how big this problem is. This will create new requirements for JIRA balloting. Wayne: Lloyd has a method within JIRA balloting. Melva has been keeping statistics of how many things have been reassigned. Wayne will check with Melva.
- ACTION: Wayne to check with Melva on tracker reassignment statistics
- What is the question we need to ask Karen about continuous maintenance? Decision that we don’t have a question for her at this point. Will run any proposal past her. Paul: The difference will be that continuous maintenance means you have to ballot the whole thing. Wayne: You’re basically commenting on the changes. Need to clarify what exactly is balloted.
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Thom
- VOTE: All in favor
- Discussion over ballot comments linked to the wrong content. Should make it clear via policy that the comments still need to go to the right place to be considered. Discussion over where/how to document. Calvin: When you have FHIR defining ballots where the ballot is a set of things at a certain ballot status, and somebody puts a comment in to that ballot – if it transfers to something in that same ballot, is that different than a transfer to something outside of that ballot? Paul; FHIR has a single specification with artifacts at different levels; may do multiple ballots on the diverse specification. Calvin: Do these rules vary depending on if the WGs were in the same technical ballot? Will have to know the boundaries of transfer. We need the solution or software to track this. Need to be able to track the provenance/workflow. Austin wonders if FMG has a grip on how big this problem is. This will create new requirements for JIRA balloting. Wayne: Lloyd has a method within JIRA balloting. Melva has been keeping statistics of how many things have been reassigned. Wayne will check with Melva.
- Review Minutes of 2018-05-30_SGB_Conference_Call (not quorate)
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Wayne
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action Items
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Anne to work on adding links on precepts page to approval minutes for each precept
- Ongoing
- Wayne and Calvin to discuss the balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR with EC
- Wayne brought it up and there were no comments.
- Perhaps we need a task force to put together a proposal on the continuous maintenance issue with representatives from SGB and TSC.
- ACTION: Add both issues to TSC agenda
- Add redirecting ballot comments to TSC agenda
- Complete.
- Add vocabulary tooling and co-chair succession planning to TSC agenda
- Complete
- Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
- Carry forward
- Develop precept that moving forward, you can’t have a normative artifact if it has dependencies on artifacts which aren’t themselves Normative. Run past management groups and TSC.
- ACTION: Paul to draft message to management groups/TSC
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- Review V2MG candidates
- Paul did get a payer candidate.
- MOTION to accept the slate of V2MG members: Calvin/Austin
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Add to TSC agenda for approval
- ACTION: Anne to send invitation for additional participation to Andrea/Pat for distribution to membership
- Review FHIR artifact governance process
- FHIR has a process in addition to the PSS process for new resource proposals, profiles, and IGs. If we have this within FHIR, it could also occur within other families, so we should have a common process. Calvin: Do we really want to have two things? Why couldn’t a resource request just be a PSS? This sets up an approval circuit to do work without a PSS. Paul states they typically have a PSS, but this encourages omnibus PSSs with individual resource proposals. Calvin: It makes sense that they want to control the development of resources; need to clarify when the PSS is created to manage the work going on. The boundaries are unclear. Austin: Getting one of these approved is not the same as being authorized to do a project. If it’s not in their workflow, we should encourage that. The next step after the resource proposal is that, if you don’t already have a PSS, you should create one. Discussion over TSC involvement. Right now, you can do one of these without a PSS and there is no organizational communication.
- ACTION: Add to next week’s agenda
- FHIR has a process in addition to the PSS process for new resource proposals, profiles, and IGs. If we have this within FHIR, it could also occur within other families, so we should have a common process. Calvin: Do we really want to have two things? Why couldn’t a resource request just be a PSS? This sets up an approval circuit to do work without a PSS. Paul states they typically have a PSS, but this encourages omnibus PSSs with individual resource proposals. Calvin: It makes sense that they want to control the development of resources; need to clarify when the PSS is created to manage the work going on. The boundaries are unclear. Austin: Getting one of these approved is not the same as being authorized to do a project. If it’s not in their workflow, we should encourage that. The next step after the resource proposal is that, if you don’t already have a PSS, you should create one. Discussion over TSC involvement. Right now, you can do one of these without a PSS and there is no organizational communication.
- Review V2MG candidates
- Carry forward:
- SGB Communication Plan
- Large architectures coming in
- CIMI MG followup
- Carried forward from previous weeks:
- SGB to look at continuous maintenance for Normative standards - discuss with Karen (on vacation this week)
- Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
- Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR
- Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
- Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
- Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
- Review Mission and Charter
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Technical Alignments Between Product Families
- How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
- Precept on bringing in large projects
- Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
- Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
- Precepts We Need to Develop
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
