20140604 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2014-06-04
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: LLoyd Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum = chair + 4 yes
Co chairs David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Hugh Glover x Paul Knapp x Lynn Laakso, scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech x Lorraine Constable
x Ken McCaslin

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20140528_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
      • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd)
      • PSS for DSTU2(Lloyd)
      • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)
      • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
  • work on CCDA driven by FMG rather than individual work groups if needed vs. allowing SDWG to oversee the work instead of the primary WGs taking responsibility.
  • Project reviews
  • Reports
  • Process management
    • Ballot Planning
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

Lloyd convenes at 1:04 PM

  • Agenda Check - Lorraine has a question on the Devices PSS from the OO perspective; SDC was already approved but doesn't contain the item FMG wished to include, for an IG. Hans/Paul motion approval; unanimously approved
  • Minutes from 20140528_FMG_concall Hans moves and Paul seconds approval; unanimously approved.
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd) - he has not heard back
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix. David is not on the call
      • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd) no document yet from Ewout
      • PSS for DSTU2 (Lloyd) - he has the version from last time but not updated to new template.
      • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans) Tracking sheet posted to google docs and linked to SVN.
      • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David) Proposals cleaned up and will do block approval after PSS approvals likely next week.
  • work on CCDA driven by FMG rather than individual work groups if needed vs. allowing SDWG to oversee the work instead of the primary WGs taking responsibility.
    • (defer for further discussion by FGB) Project Approval request of Patient Care WG Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Patient Care WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1105 and TSC Tracker #3277
    • Project Approval request of Health Care Devices to Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Health Care Devices WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1103 and TSC Tracker #3278
    • Should we look to the WGs to develop PSSes for this scope, also need to identify whether these are strategic and urgent enough to be pushed. How essential is it to be done completely for DSTU R2 versus merely initiated. Hans adds that the CCDA work could be limited to US Realm, and should SDWG be coordinating or the domain WGs. Lorraine adds that FMG decided to send back existing PSSes that did not include the work so if the WG had other work that was not taking on the strategic priority work and risk FMG not endorsing the WG's other work. Lloyd asks if we have the right to seek to get the work done that was not accepted by a WG, finding other volunteer resources etc as needed or does FMG have the right to deny work to proceed. Lloyd feels we have the right but whether we exercise it to encourage prioritization is of question.
    • Is CCDA is strategically important to FHIR: three groups independently working on FHIR mapping, ONC working on it, most widely implemented CDA profile out there right now Lloyd thinks. It was the initial criteria for the set of resources to create. Vetting and validating CCDA requirements has been a big effort and if those requirements are unclear that information needs to go back to the CCDA team.
    • Hans notes LOI, LRI, and others in practical, substantial use are good candidates.
    • Paul suggests that it sounds like any WG that has anything that touches CCDA has to work on it now. Every entry template in CCDA IG, realistically, we won't get them all done prior to DSTUR2; however whose call is it to prioritize them? Implementer community wants them all; taking only the easy ones and leaving the hard ones does not accomplish the objective. If we only have time for 30 of 50 for example that is all we can do.
    • Paul notes that FM has not yet begun to look at profiling as the ballot material is already broken and there are hours of exercise to get the resource material ready before they being profiling.
    • Lloyd notes you get as far as you can and flag the outstanding issues. Of course you must create the resource before you can profile it. CCDA as strategic priority; won't all be done and won't delay publication of DSTU2 for lack of complete mapping of CCDA. Reasonable objective to get as far as we can, acknowledging it will likely not be complete.
    • John suggests we indicate our priority to use CCDA as modeling tool to make profiles with primary goal to ensure the core resource model is complete. Lloyd notes that he would also like to ensure that WGs learn how to do profiling (by spreadsheet or by the tooling available). Paul suggests an online workshop to show them the tools; Lloyd agrees it is on the near-term list.
    • Prioritizing CCDA profiles over other WG work should not be hard if there is such significant interest. Hans notes that in OO for example they would prefer to work on LOI and LRI rather than CCDA. SDWG has the strongest interest in CCDA but FMG seeks the work to be done by the domain experts and resource owners. May require shifting people around and finding those appropriate to the task will be better use of labor notes Lloyd. Skill of the body count is also important notes John. Getting more people in the WG space familiar with doing FHIR resources and profiles will help notes Lorraine. John notes that knowledge might be FHIR, the use case, the clinical modeling or security modeling aspects.
    • Agreement that the work should proceed in the WG; two sets of labor resources: invite them from where they are in the WG to participate and offer training to get the work done. How do we address perception of stopping other FHIR work in favor of CCDA asks Hans? Lloyd suggests we assert having the right to do that but be very cautious in executing that right. He suggests that such decisions be reviewed by FGB for strategic review. Paul suggests we frame it as providing labor resources to the WGs rather than taking the work away from them. Lloyd agrees we should first seek to rectify the lack of bandwidth to do the work. If it is an interest issue instead then we may need to look for alternate places for the work to occur. Paul suggests that may be a TSC issue. Doing the work elsewhere is a de facto alteration of the scope statement which is a TSC issue. Hans agrees we need to get the WG to agree that others can work on it in a collaborative arrangement with opportunities to review. The WG should also manage their project at the collective level of the resource/profile development teams.
    • Lloyd summarizes
      • Approach 1: try to find resources to bring to bear to work under the auspices of the relevant WG, and the WG has final say over the content
      • Approach 2: bring resources to bear and have WG undertake review of content but not have final responsibility (current ownership of resources with core team e.g. message header could be InM or security resources but the WG has requested not to take primary responsibility but are consulted with). Final authority for change is the issue. If more than half of the core resources are currently "owned" by the core team it's not indicative of penetration in the organization.
      • Approach 3: Escalate to FGB, ask them to confirm prioritization of FHIR work where FMG will not authorize task B until task A is done.
      • Approach 4: Ask TSC to dictate prioritization.
    • John asks what if the WG doesn't have bandwidth because they're working on non-FHIR work? This is the case with CBCC. For them it's not a FHIR A thing versus a FHIR B thing. That would be ratified by escalation to TSC as compared to FHIR A/FHIR B prioritization is an FGB thing. CBCC is serving two US federal agency masters and is not solely dedicated to FHIR.
    • Paul will draft a policy - phase 1 is principles and phase 2 the operational approaches to deliver on the principles.
    • Lloyd notes that CCDA is probably not higher than other FHIR work and we should bring resources to help them. He thought the kickback implied a request to include the scope change rather than a demand.
    • PSS framework - DSTU2 PSS for defining resources, CCDA profile, enhancing and maintaining existing resources. If the CCDA profiling work is in that PSS, do we need it to be repeated in the WG PSSes? Paul feels it should be repeated for communication clarity. John feels listing it in the WG PSS reinforces ownership. Lorraine notes it is consistent to resource development in the past. So, we request they add it, and to do it we will provide developer resources to help, and are they comfortable with that. If the WG declines we address it on a case-by-case basis.
    • OO projects are explicitly non-CCDA, so requesting CCDA inclusion of them might be a fourth PSS. Lorraine/Hans will communicate to OO the request to have a CCDA project.
    • Paul asks about contribution to ballot participation in WGH - Lynn will create a list to have FMG assert who has participated.
    • Hans asks about the SDWG for a cross-project domain on CCDA for US Realm clarity. Paul notes that you can have mixed realm in a project scope statement as discussed in yesterday's US Realm TF call. Lloyd recaps individual work groups will have their own PSS(es) that may not necessarily be flagged as US Realm, FMG has a PSS for the whole with SDWG as cosponsor and we will tackle US Realm next week.
    • Lorraine notes that the Devices PSS is for Dev WG but OO owns the Device WG. Shouldn't OO be at least a consulted party?
    • Defer project approval and recommendation to TSC to next week. Can we do an email vote? Lloyd will send it out.


Defer to next week after adjournment at 2:11 PM



Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20140611 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.