20151004 FMG/FGB WGM

HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes Location: Atlanta 5		Date: 2015-10-04 Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd		Note taker(s): Anne

Quorum				yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO		Members
x	George (Woody) Beeler	x	Lorraine Constable	x	Grahame Grieve	x	David Hay
	Dave Shaver		Ewout Kramer	x	Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)	x	Calvin Beebe
	John Quinn
FMG Co chairs	x	David Hay	x	Lloyd McKenzie
Members		Members		Members		Observers/Guests
	Hans Buitendijk	x	Brian Postlethwaite	x	Paul Knapp
x	Josh Mandel	x	John Moehrke	x	Brian Pech
observers/guests

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Discussion Topics:
  • Hot topics and objectives for the week
  • Criteria for DSTU 2.1
  • Commit Strategy for 2.1 vs. 3.0

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

• Agenda:
  • 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).

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International