20160808 FGB concall

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

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 136-494-157 using VOIP

Date: 2016-08--08
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Lynn L
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes
Co-Chair/CTO Members
Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer Cecil Lynch (ArB) regrets Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
Wayne Kubick . Calvin Beebe .
observers/guests
x Lynn, scribe

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20160801 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Policy on hosting implementation guides on github
      • Policy around how we allow the github projects to be set up
      • Who controls committer access, etc.
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.

Minutes

Convened at 4:03 PM


Proposed policy
This applies to implementation guides balloted by HL7 Intl. Other implementation guides have whatever policy they want. HL7 affiliates?

  • IGs have their own github repository
    • Grahame notes it would be a 1:1 relationship
  • license must be creative commons public domain (??)
    • Grahame notes that IGs derived from FHIR are not required to be CC by HL7 policy but would be required open source under github
    • Lorraine agrees github would be useful but material designated for HL7 Int’l ballot must be hosted on HL7 sites. HL7 could get a corporate github account. With an HL7 corporate account we may not have to meet the CC github requirements
    • Dave summarizes that if others wanted to deposit into github repository they have to have their own account. HL7 has to manage their repository
    • Grahame amends:
      • if using a public GitHub repository, the license must be creative commons public domain. Guides not licensed under creative commons must be owned by the (as yet unestablished) HL7 github account
      • balloted content must be through existing ballot process
      • Discussion with Lorraine ensued on existing TSC policy to retain management of near-ballot and ballot-ready material
  • repository must be set up with at least one FMG designated committer
  • all committers must agree to HL7 IP rules and FHIR code of conduct
    • Grahame notes this is already acknowledged and enforced for SVN
  • FMG asked to investigate continuity arrangements (e.g. most efficient way to keep a clone repository somewhere). EST have to sign off on this
    • unlike SVN, github is distributed repository. Grahame assumes that this is already set up with EST/staff for SVN. With Github, everyone with a Github repository has everything. So a maintained clone is our backup
    • FMG may investigate and suggest but final determination would be EST and Staff, notes Lorraine.
  • IGs must ensure that a current version is posted in public via the FMG designated link
    • FMG is currently trying to figure out how to set up current versions of IG once moved out of the spec
    • Lorraine asks if we need to coordinate with Publishing WG; Grahame notes that FMG is meant to handle publishing in conjunction with Pubs WG; Brian is current representative and there are unresolved issues. Actual publishing is Grahame and Lynn. This time will be more difficult. Instead of a clone of the HL7 site that is usually worked with, the IGs must move into a subdirectory of the current site and other subdirectories must be copied into different locations
  • FMG can approve a repository and publish it prior to project approval if it deems this appropriate
    • Grahame asks what are the rules for affiliate-balloted projects. Lorraine notes there is a process to bring forward their standards into HL7 International. Affiliate IP rules can differ from HL7 IP rules. The Affiliate project would have to start following HL7 IP rules from the beginning to avoid conflict with contributions that had copyrighted material. The heritage of the project must have proven public provenance with contributions to Eclipse, for example. Will the realm-specific publications be maintained properly? Grahame agrees we don’t want to be involved in the content, but in the governance. May be able to exert governance over new work but not over existing work. Should this be referred to TSC? Dave draws parallel to CCOW, Lorraine to V3 CMETs and messages for local realm. Grahame suggests we would assert governance requirements in order for an affiliate to make a claim for a realm-specific IG such as arrangements for continuity etc. That may have to go into the Affiliate agreements. ACTION ITEM: Lorraine will bring the concern of asserting governance over affiliate related development to the TSC
    • Grahame suggests we circulate this to the absent FGB members for review as well. Grahame will post to chat channel.
  • FMG asked to maintain a list of repository projects
  • other discussion topics
    • Policy around how we allow the github projects to be set up
      • Who controls committer access, etc.


  • adjourned 4:49 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lorraine will bring the concern of asserting governance over affiliate related development to the TSC
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2016 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.