20150805 FMG concall

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

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

(voice and screen)

Date: 2015-08-05
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
. Rob Hausaum
. Yunwei Wang

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20150729_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • David to reach out to Devices and invite them to an upcoming call to discuss proposals
      • Lloyd will add to the QA tracking spreadsheet some places for WGs to capture the remaining criteria
      • David or Brian Post to reach out to Devices WG about Device proposals.
      • Hans to talk with O&O regarding SupplyResource going forward as draft
      • Lloyd will send out reminder email about virtual Connectathon and add to Wiki page
      • Lloyd to send out solicitation for QA volunteers
      • David to run list of profiles in current ballot to determine which are approved and which are generic extension-defining profiles
      • Lloyd will contact WG to determine whether they want GenomicVariantObservation to be a resource or a profile
      • Lloyd to update QA page to include profiles
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Skype issue/freeing up space for the short term
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Convened at 4:15 pm Eastern
  • MOTION to approve agenda by Brian Post; second by Brian Pech.
  • VOTE: all in favor
  • MOTION to approve minutes by Brian Pech; second by Brian Post.
  • VOTE: John M. abstains. 3/1/0
  • Actions:
    • David reached out to Devices; waiting to hear back
    • Lloyd has not added to tracking spreadsheet - carry forward
    • Hans not present to report on O&O re: supply resources
    • Lloyd added Connectathon to Wiki page; will send out to FHIR list
    • QA volunteers - keep on as reminder for next week
    • David has not yet sent list of profiles
    • Lloyd reached out to Genomics and has not heard back - will circle back
    • Lloyd would like to discuss QA page and adding profiles and about FMM levels in general.
  • Connectathons - no business
  • FGB has not met
  • MnM working through tracking items.
  • Pharmacy is concerned about their ability to finish content.
  • QA guidelines for DSTU 2:
    • Should we use the same set of quality criteria for profiles and IGs that we're using for resources? Lloyd thinks this looks specific to resources and we should have a separate set of criteria for IGs and profiles. Brian Pech - we may even want to make a distinction between those two. Lloyd doubts that we're going to come up with this new criteria by the end of August, so no profile or IG can be higher level than FMM 2 at this point. Lloyd will give MnM the task of coming up with an equivalent set of QA guidelines for profiles and IGs.
  • Maturity Metrics:
    • Lloyd has concerns about the criteria in FMM1 that the WG considers the artifact ready but the WG has no power at higher levels. It might make more sense to give the WG a veto power for other levels as well. Discussion over adding WG approval to reach level 4.
      • MOTION to require WG approval for transition from FMM 3 to FMM 4 by John M.; second by Brian Post.
      • VOTE: All in favor.
  • Second question: what does it mean in FMM 2, "artifact has been tested at an HL7 International Connectathon." Need to tighten up this language/concept. Discussion over how to do this; questions regarding the necessity. Lloyd suggests: "FMM1 + the artifact has been tested and successfully exchanged between at least three independently developed systems at a connectathon whose results have been reported to the FMG."
    • MOTION to approve wording change by John M.; second by Brian Post.
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • FMM 3 includes the word "verified" - do we care who is doing the verification? How do we verify that critical review has occurred? Lloyd suggests we need to have a supplement to the page describing rationale for each level. ACTION: Anne to add item to next week's agenda revisiting. Back to the issue: are we comfortable with self verification? John M. suggests the wording should assert that verification should come from the WG..
    • MOTION to make that verbiage update by Paul; second by John M.
    • VOTE: All in favor.
  • Level 4: issues with "tested across its scope." Should state that there was a detailed review by an expert in the space, or a mapping to an implemented specification that has been implemented in that scope area, or has been implemented itself. What constitutes a scope area? FMG should be comfortable with the scope it is being tested across. Breadth of the testing must be appropriate. Lloyd adds text: Tested across scope means: -The FMG has signed off on the list of "example contexts" defined for the artifact - For each example context, the artifact has either been: reviewed and approved by a domain expert for that scope area, mapped to an existing implemented scope-area-specific standard or tested in an implementation.
  • Discussion over phrase "subsequent non-backward compatible changes."
    • MOTION by Brian Post to accept amendment; second by Paul.
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • ACTION: Anne to add process for implementer feedback for FMM 4 and 5 breaking changes to next agenda
  • ACTION: Anne to add to next week's agenda - Looking at example contexts for everything level 4 and above


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • David to reach out to Devices and invite them to an upcoming call to discuss proposals
  • Lloyd will add to the QA tracking spreadsheet some places for WGs to capture the remaining criteria
  • Hans to talk with O&O regarding SupplyResource going forward as draft
  • Lloyd to send out solicitation for QA volunteers
  • David to run list of profiles in current ballot to determine which are approved and which are generic extension-defining profiles
  • Lloyd will contact WG to determine whether they want GenomicVariantObservation to be a resource or a profile
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20150812 FMG concall


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.