20151004 FMG/FGB WGM
|HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes
Location: Atlanta 5
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair: Lloyd||Note taker(s): Anne|
|x||George (Woody) Beeler||x||Lorraine Constable||x||Grahame Grieve||x||David Hay|
|Dave Shaver||Ewout Kramer||x||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)||x||Calvin Beebe|
|FMG Co chairs||x||David Hay||x||Lloyd McKenzie|
|Hans Buitendijk||x||Brian Postlethwaite||x||Paul Knapp|
|x||Josh Mandel||x||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech|
- Roll Call
- Discussion Topics:
- Hot topics and objectives for the week
- Criteria for DSTU 2.1
- Commit Strategy for 2.1 vs. 3.0
- Add TSC discussion on dot releases, and timeline for 2.1
- Hot topics and agendas for the week:
- Coordinating resource and profile editors – will talk about that in Q4 and bring back on Thursday
- Formal strategy for communicating timelines and engagement with WGs, etc.
- Feedback from WGS: talking to them about maturity levels, new resources/profiles for either 2.1 or 3.0, gforge QA processes, timeline for 2.1
- Need to close out gforge pilot process
- Managing artifacts for FMM level 4+
- How do we ensure that everyone’s resources have been through Connectathon?
- Process formalization for approving use of the FHIR name – Anne to add to tomorrow lunch agenda
- Request comes in through FMG contact
- Technical correction for technical representation of resources – need to decide which to correct and why
- Is there a short quick process we could undertake to review DSTU 2 to sweep up any others for inclusion in that release? Doing multiple TCs reduces confidence. Paul suggests that we reach out to the WGs to alert them that we’ll be doing a TC for things that are broken and that they should forward any issues they find for inclusion.
- TSC discussion about naming
- Look at harmonizing the naming that we use
- Proposal is to name as a major and minor versions with revisions – major.minor.revision (i.e., 2.0.1)
- Long conversation to have with TSC about when FHIR goes normative
- Original guidelines implied that when you published a dot release, it didn’t reset the time of the DSTU expiring because it was an unballoted correction. Revised policy will add the WG adding their preference for resetting or not.
- Do we want to come up with our candidate scope for 2.1 and go to WGs with that, or do we want to solicit info first from the WGs?
- Reviewed Lloyd’s email describing scope criteria for DSTU 2.1 changes
- Number 6 on email describes process to potentially allow things to go normative in 3.0. Therefore, we want to get certain things to FMM 5 so they’re ready to do so. Grahame/Paul suggest that it may be too early to do so. Suggestion to make this statement more focused on FMM levels.
- Number 4: Discussion over substantive vs. significant change and the appropriate timeframe for completing those changes (sooner or later).
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
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.