20151005 FGB WGM

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

Location: Atlanta 5

Date: 2015-10-05
Time: 7:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
x Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer Cecil Lynch (ArB) x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
John Quinn x Calvin Beebe .
observers/guests x Michelle Miller
x Anne W., scribe

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20150928 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Anne to forward eLTSS presentation to FGB
    • Cecil to follow up on ONC liaison to FGB
    • Define what "FHIR-related project" means in terms of projects to be reviewed by FMG
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Expectations for review of FHIR-related projects
    • Introduction to Standards Governance Board
    • Process for vetting FMM 4+ changes
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.

Minutes

  • Woody chairing
  • Meeting called to order
  • Agenda review:
    • Add review of intention for rules of the scope of DSTU 2.1
    • Add extensibility
  • MOTION to accept agenda and minutes approved
  • VOTE: all in favor
  • Action Item review:
    • Anne to forward eLTSS presentation to FGB
    • Cecil to follow up on ONC liaison to FGB
    • Define what "FHIR-related project" means in terms of projects to be reviewed by FMG
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Expectations for review of FHIR-related projects
    • Introduction to Standards Governance Board
    • Process for vetting FMM 4+ changes
  • Expectations for review of FHIR-related projects
    • Part of the PSS process is the expectation that any project that contains the word FHIR shows up at FMG in parallel to WG approval. Recent PSS from ArB went directly to TSC without FMG approval. Two issues: 1) What is the set of PSSes that should be coming to FMG and 2) Is the bar appropriately set at “has the word FHIR appearing in it anywhere” or should it be tighter or looser; 3) Is the review from FMG one where we approve or reject, or one where we advise.
    • Lorraine states that this particular project didn’t create anything new that was FHIR-related so that was the reason they didn’t feel it needed FHIR approval. Grahame adds that the original project didn’t state that so he asked them to clarify.
    • Woody: In this example it would have been reasonable to bring it up for discussion. Lloyd: My opinion is that anything FHIR-related should come before the FMG. If it involves creation of FHIR content or influences how FHIR content is going to be generated from a methodology perspective, it should require FMG approval. If it doesn’t, then FMG should have the opportunity to at least advise the TSC of any concerns or recommendations around the project.
    • Woody: we should also be asking the TSC to be aware that FMG should have reviewed the project first. This is usually caught by the steering division level review but ArB doesn’t go through steering division review.
    • Grahame: This could be fixed through product family management. Product family manager should always look at family-related projects. TSC should more formally track projects and their relationships.
    • Lorraine: Advice that TSC gave was that project should reach out to FHIR-I for co-sponsorship, but that the focus of the project wasn’t FHIR.
    • Calvin has concerns about everything FHIR going to FMG – what about all of the profiling? Do we want to include profiling in that space? Grahame: we’re not saying FMG has to do the work but at least be informed of the projects. This should include NIBs. NIBs should be approved by the product family manager. Woody: That would preserve the reputation of consistency. Lloyd: my understanding of the scope of the management group is the product family including the base specification and all of the derivatives. Lorraine: there will be other projects that will use the material being produced but not change it, edit it, or add to it.
    • Grahame: TSC needs to think through the implications of product family management. Woody: it also needs to think through that all the products may not be part of that family – there will be cross-product family issues.
  • Standards Governance Board:
    • Yesterday they had an organizational meeting. Paul is the TSC-appointed chair and Calvin is the other co-chair. This week they’ll be doing meet and greets. Paul will be here in a few minutes.
  • Process for vetting FMM 4+ changes
    • Lloyd: we have indicated an intention that we’ll have an increased bar regarding substantive change that impacts FMM 4 and 5 resources. We haven’t defined exactly what that looks like. Grahame: one particular detail is at what point in the process is the consultation and the registration of interest. He proposes that for resources in FMM 4 and particularly 5, when the committee is considering making a breaking change to the artifact, the committee would, as part of its deliberations, have a consultation with implementers registered as having that artifact in production. It’s a transition period from outright experiment towards stability.
    • Woody: how do we best involve the implementers? Grahame: we could have a wiki page where registered implementers can post their activity.
    • Grahame: From a governance perspective it’s a consultation occurring in committee process without ballot with people who have declared themselves of implementers.
    • Calvin: we’re not standardized in documenting our governance patterns. Who is consulted, who reviews, who approves? We need a standardized way of sharing this information. Grahame: typically we document on the wiki by updating standing documentation. Calvin: we don’t want each product family to come up with a different way to document – we need a standardized, systematic way. Grahame expresses concern that each product family is run differently and has different requirements. Woody: another example is the way families to reconciliation – each does it slightly differently and that’s probably okay.
  • Extensibility
    • Grahame: From the beginning, an FGB issue is with letting people define their own resources. We need to raise this issue again as we work on tooling related to that. What are the governance implications of that? Woody: the premise that everything can be done with extensions has become too burdensome? Grahame: they are only good for minimal extensibility requirements. But once you start going deep into extensions it’s increasingly difficult. Needs to be on future agendas; in the meantime we need to consider the implications.
  • Paul here from SGB
    • Reviews slides that will be presented this evening at the co-chair dinner describing the purpose of the SGB
    • Lloyd: should we have semi-regular discussion sessions between FGB and SGB? Paul: at January meeting we’ll want to have some meeting time together. We could do 30 minutes Q0 and then go into Q1.
    • Paul states that it is to be determined if, once the SGB is up and running, there will be a need for separate family-related governance. There is no urgent need now to change the status quo at this point for the FGB. Grahame states his opinion that there will need to be governance from the families.
    • Woody: V3 is not fully represented on the members of SGB. It is noted that Rik, Austin, and Lorraine have experience with V3 and should be equipped to speak to issues.
  • MOTION to adjourn by David.

Next Steps

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.