20150617 FMG concall
|HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes
|Date: 2015-06-17 |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair:||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|Quorum = chair + 4||yes/no|
|Co chairs||Regrets||David Hay||x||Lloyd McKenzie|
|.||John Quinn, CTO|
|x||Hans Buitendijk||x||Brian Postlethwaite||x||Paul Knapp||x||Anne W., scribe|
|x||Josh Mandel||x||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech|
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20150610_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Lloyd to continue work on the version numbering change request document and bring back for group review.
- Brian Pech will start work on the Wiki page for the Connectathon
- Lloyd to continue work on Gforge instructional Wiki page and tracker extraction tool
- Action items
- Discussion Topics
- QA expectations for being able to be in DSTU 2 as non-draft
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Add Connectathon topics to agenda.
- MOTION to approve agenda by Brian Pech; second by Josh.
- VOTE: In favor: all
- MOTION to approve minutes from last week by Hans; second from Brian Pech.
- VOTE: None opposed. David abstains. In favor: Paul, Lloyd, Josh
- Versioning rules: Lloyd continues to work on the request document. Carry forward to next week.
- Brian working on agenda for Connectathon. Request from Grahame was to try not to do orders/workflow management this time around; some will be highlighted in scheduling track, and he wants to run a full pharmacy scenario in January. Does want to bring in EHR record lifecycle.
- MOTION to make those changes to last week’s agreement by David; second by Hans. Paul asks if this will make balloting the material in January tight. Lloyd states we’ll take feedback from ballot and Connectathon and evaluate.
- VOTE: All in favor.
- There is now a Wiki page on gforge – Lloyd would like group to review and get feedback to him before the announcement tomorrow.
- QA expectations for DSTU 2: If someone is at maturity level 0, should they be allowed to do non-draft in DSTU 2?
- MOTION from Hans that FMG will announce a policy that resources that are not at maturity level 1 cannot be considered as DSTU status in publication. Amendment: Put warning in place and ask WGs to identify any warning they don’t think are reasonable to clean up by end of June. Second by Brian Pech. Went over specific WG warnings.
- VOTE: All in favor. Lloyd will send out the request for feedback.
- Second part of QA: the spreadsheet that folks have been filling out. Are there any of those QA items that we want to consider requirements to be DSTU 2? Paul states all of them should be requirements. Do we still want that to be the case? Went over and discussed the guidelines.
- Do we think this work can be done in the timeframe we have? Do we want to delay publication if the work isn’t done? Do we want to modify the definition of FMM 1 to say that the resource has undergone review against the DSTU quality criteria and the WG asserts that the resource meets relevant quality criteria? There is either going to have to be more help or we’ll defer publication – or some things will drop to draft until 2.1.
- Brian Post suggests that it should be at a different level at FMM 1 – perhaps 2 or 3. Suggestion to make it FMM 3.
- MOTION to amend the maturity model to include the conflated QA checklist at FMM 3; Paul seconds.
- VOTE: John Moehrke abstains. All others in favor. Lloyd will apply that change. Ramification is that we don’t expect QA complete for DSTU 2, but it will of course be encouraged.
- Connectathon: already discussed scenarios. Should we send out notification scenarios, or wait until definitions are more solidified? Brian Post would like a week for his scenarios.
- FGB: Went over what was not being transitioned from FHIR Core to FHIR Infrastructure WG. Will be reviewed by TSC on Monday. Some will be owned by HL7 and some won’t. FHIR community will be a semi-independent organization. Reference implementations will continue to be open source tooling efforts independent of HL7. Paul states the management of what comes into the standard should fall under HL7. Lloyd clarifies. Paul: when is HL7 going to explain FHIR.org to the membership? Unsure of the timeline.
- MnM: has not had the opportunity to have a call recently.
- Liaison reports: Consent work has asked to not have their material in DSTU 2 but in a future release.
- MOTION to accept the Consent resource and profile for inclusion in a post-DSTU 2 interim release by John; second by Brian Post. Paul’s suggested revision to broaden the motion: content for interim release can include any content that was in the DSTU 2 ballot that was either demoted to draft or was removed at the request of the committee. Further discussion: do we really need a motion to this effect? We could probably simply minute it. Lack of publication doesn’t take you out of the development process. Lloyd states we should state the policy.
- AMENDED MOTION by John: as long as scope is substantially the same, when content has been approved for inclusion in a release and is demoted or removed prior to publication, it shall still automatically be eligible for inclusion in the next release cycle without special approval being required. Second by Brian Post.
- VOTE: All in favor.
- Where should we maintain such policies? Should probably pull them out and post on wiki page. ACTION: Anne to create Management Policies wiki page.
- Next week: start going through our liaison spreadsheet to make needed updates.
- Lloyd: Should we also posit that you can’t make it to normative status without hitting FMM 5? No objections. Lloyd will solicit feedback.
- Call adjourned at 5:30 pm Eastern.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 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.