20150202 FGB concall
|HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes
Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
|Date: 2015-02-02 |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator:||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|Quorum = Chair plus 2||yes/no|
|Woody Beeler||x||Lorraine Constable||Regrets||Grahame Grieve||David Hay (FMG)|
|x||Dave Shaver||Ewout Kramer||x||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)||Ron Parker|
|Anne Wizauer, scribe|
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of WGM Minutes
- Action Item review:
- Further discussion on FMG/FGB governance processes
- Joint call with FGB/FMG/TSC
- Add third chair or acting chair
- Replacement for Ron plus clinician role
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- Conformity Assessment
- Convened at 4:05
- Agenda reviewed; Lloyd moves to approve, Lorraine seconds.
- Reviewed minutes from WG meeting; Lloyd moves to approve, Lorraine seconds.
- Reviewed FMG/FGB minutes from WG - Lorraine moves to approve, Lloyd seconds.
- Governance process: Lloyd - Role of governance vs. role of management. TSC view seems to be that governance is much more hands on than FGB has been acting. Specific question about what FMG did around ballot processes and presumption that it should have been decided upon by FGB. The other piece is the TSC's sense that there may be a single governance body over all of the product families. Lloyd sees the TSC's role as more management focused. Thoughts on single governance board as opposed to multiple? One key problem with multiple boards is volunteer bandwidth. There should be distinct precepts for each of the product families. There are very different design processes. Lorraine agrees and says that is a methodology issue rather than governance. Dave mentions the importance of agility in reaching consensus in a reasonable amount of time with a single board. Will need nimbleness in both management and governance. Action: Write up precepts around internal processes. Ballot process for FHIR - will need some changes there, for example. TSC expects that FHIR will follow organizational processes the way that they are defined; Lloyd doesn't know if a precept of FHIR should be that we follow those if they don't work for us. Lorraine suggests we document what doesn't work for us about the existing processes and take it to TSC for review; we need to have some formality about documenting suggested changes.
- Joint call will occur after issues are worked through FMG; will bring that conversation back to FGB on next week's call and then involve Ken when we've got draft precepts.
- Lorraine is acting chair through May as decided upon in San Antonio.
- ArB representative to FGB - should it be Lorraine or someone else? ArB will discuss - Lorraine to get it on the agenda. Provider-focused member - should we continue to pursue when the longevity of FGB is in question? Will put word out to FGB members to come up with suggestions for candidates for provider representative as a first step. Lloyd moves to proceed in that direction; Lorraine seconds.
- FMG will be sending out a solicitation shortly for assistance for OO and Patient Care and FHIR core in terms of QA work and applying changes. FHIR Core WG proposal is at FTSD for review.
- Lorraine will try to pull up the first draft of precepts for review on 2/9 call.
- Call adjourned at 4:57.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
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.