20160418 FGB concall
|HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes
Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
|Date: 2016-04-18 |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator:||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|Quorum = Chair plus 2||yes/no|
|Woody Beeler||x||Lorraine Constable||x||Grahame Grieve||David Hay|
|x||Dave Shaver||x||Ewout Kramer||Cecil Lynch (ArB)||x||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)|
|x||Wayne Kubick||.||Calvin Beebe||.|
|Anne W., scribe|
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20160404 FGB concall
- Action Item review:
- FGB now on Zulip
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- Called to order at 4:08
- Reviewed minutes from 20160404 call
- MOTION to accept by Lloyd; second by Grahame
- VOTE: all in favor (2/0/0)
- FGB is up and running on Zulip. Lloyd asks if we're confident that our backup mechanism is in place and robust? Grahame affirms although they haven't done a test restore. Backup now goes directly to Amazon. Lloyd would like to verify that restore works.
- ACTION: Grahame will check for next week.
- FMG - continuing to work on getting resource proposals approved. Talked about how to measure whether WGs are progressing through tracker items. Weekly report is generated but Lloyd is adding additional metrics to give us more meaningful information. Also looking at how to evaluate WGs' progress around moving up the maturity metric charts; reaching out to ask what target FMM levels are.
- MnM: Met and did a ton of administrative stuff, including developing a PSS for their FHIR work.
- Other business:
- Grahame: There was a suggestion that we may need something equivalent to the FMM levels to deal with non-conformant use - like a conformance level index. Measures deviance from the spec. Will discuss in Montreal. Example: OpenEHR adopts FHIR as a technology platform, but they won't use existing resources, only custom resources. Discussion over ways to manage. Wayne: we have to be careful that if we admit them into the community that we don't call it "FHIR." Should call it FHIR-derived or FHIR-enabled or something similar. Grahame: if we agree that there are some stepped process towards conforming to FHIR, then they could use it. Still searching for language and approach. Grahame will invite Andy Bond to speak with us in Montreal about this.
- Dave: From a governance standpoint, there is infrastructure and resources. You can be compliant to one or two of these. Grahame: it might be as simple as that, or there might be even more divisions than that. Lloyd: we'll likely end up with specific labels and marks that denote varying degrees and types of FHIR capabilities and conformance - and the sooner we can define the marks and rules around their use, the better. If we don't have a conformance verification mechanism, then we're going to end up in a very confused space. Grahame: Trademark policy will be reviewed on the EC call this week. If that policy is approved, Grahame and Wayne will work on use policy to add to website. Doesn't yet talk about conformance.
- Lloyd: if we're anticipating multiple types of conformance, there is only one FHIR mark right now. If we're going to start granting access to that, then we've got a challenge. Will we limit the use of FHIR by itself to those systems that are fully conformant and come up with something else for the other things later? Grahame: we don't have a definition for fully conformant or any process to demonstrate full conformance. Grahame wants to add a section to ask about conformance on the application. Until we have a conformance process that includes products, training materials, events, etc. it won't be complete. Lloyd: There's certainly more that we can and should do in non-implementation spaces, but wouldn't prefer delaying the implementation spaces until we have the rest figured out. Grahame: we don't have a testing space to verify the mark - we have to have a working system with business arrangements around it. Lloyd: if we were to set a policy where what it means to be conformant and you must attest that you are and someone challenges it, would we have the ability to threaten withdrawal of use of the mark? Grahame: yes, we can do that, but the policy isn't currently linked to technical performance. Discussion over appeal process. Lloyd: conformance question is becoming an increasing issue, and we're about to put the trademark permission piece out without specific strategy. Wayne: the policy says that we've taken steps to verify that these are legitimate. It doesn't go so far to claim conformance to the spec. Lloyd states that we need distinct marks to delineate levels of conformance. If we allow the trademark to represent non-conformant things now, it will mean that forever. Grahame suggests we could link the flame to conformance but not the name. Lloyd: if people are marketing a product as having a FHIR interface with the logo and trademark and it turns out they're not conformant, it impacts on the brand. Discussion over mechanics/cost of developing derivative trademarks.
- Dave summarizes conversation: What does it mean to claim compliance to FHIR and are we going to have multiple levels of compliance? Dave agrees with Lloyd. Once we've put in motion what it means to be FHIR compliant, you can't pull it back. We have to do something on the governance side to shore up our conformance statements so being FHIR-compliant means something.
- Cancel next week due to absences/soft cancel meeting on the 2nd (will be held if there are agenda items that arise)
|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.