20160928 FMG concall

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

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2016-09-28
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke Regrets Brian Pech
x Mario Hyland, Lori Reed-Fourquet

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20160914_FMG_concall
  • Minutes from 20160918_FMG_FGB_WGM
  • Minutes from 20160919_FMG_WGM
  • Minutes from 20160922_FMG_FGB_WGM
  • Administrative
  • Action items
    • Need to send tracker to Andy Stechishin to be added to tooling list (unassigned)
    • Anne to forward expiring FMG members to TSC for reappointment (John, Brian Post, Brian Pech)
    • Lloyd to provide feedback to US Realm regarding proposed extension review process
    • Lloyd to discuss NIB timing with Lynn
    • Anne to add NIB submission/FHIR review timing to next TSC agenda (Anne needs clarification)
  • Review Items
  • Discussion Topcs
    • Solicitation of volunteers to help OO
    • Additional expectations regarding criteria for normative
    • Balloting discussion with TSC
    • Other updates from WGM
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management/discussion topics (David/Brian)
      • Connectathon oversight/documentation request from Viet Nguyen
      • Connectathon formalization proposal from AEGIS
    • FGB
    • MnM –
    • FMG Liaisons
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Brian Post
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Minutes from 20160914_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: John/Hans
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Minutes from 20160918_FMG_FGB_WGM
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Hans
    • VOTE: John abstains; remaining in favor
  • Minutes from 20160919_FMG_WGM
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/John
    • VOTE: John abstains; remaining in favor
  • Minutes from 20160922_FMG_FGB_WGM
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Hans
    • VOTE: John abstains. Remaining in favor
  • Connectathon formalization proposal from AEGIS
    • Mario Hyland here to discuss. Goes through the proposal introducing formality and process.
    • Incrementally building process including pre-Connectathon preparation, ensuring maturity of test items, etc.
    • David: Reporting is responsibility of track leads and those that were available were put on Zulip. At one point we did have production of test resources as part of preparation, so in principle it is reasonable. At event itself we don't have the opportunity to show what was done unless it's part of what the track lead is presenting.
    • Mario: During the execution of the Connectathon, we could start capturing some of the messages being exchanged, and those should become part of the asset of what those tracks are doing for future analysis. If the objective is to mature a resource or a profile, then track leads should collect evidence thereof.
    • Brian Post: It does make sense, especially as resources go to FMM level 3 and beyond.
    • Lloyd: Do we want to have some sort of a naming or labeling for the tracks that differentiates the experimental from the mature/robust?
    • John: It's not the same dimension as a track; some participants may come to a very mature track, but they're not coming to do formal testing. They're coming for assistance with developing something brand new. Can't choose to go deeper into testing than is available. We've been offering test servers or clients for informal use; the next level would be testing positive conformance at the resource level. There are some levels of maturity and would like to suggest that someone who is coming to a Connectathon should choose the parts of that they would like to participate in.
    • David: Maybe the patient track is the one to start this idea off with. High up on maturity and would attract both brand new people and experienced people.
    • Mario: I would agree that's a good choice. Also follows the idea that as resources and profiles go through maturity changes, this is a natural maturity-led process.
    • Brian Post: One test that could really help is the coverage of the properties.
    • Mario: Richard Ettema did take an exhaustive look at the Patient Track and that does exist at the advanced testing level.
    • David: Ahead of the next Connectathon, perhaps we host a webinar using the patient track as an example.
    • Lloyd: I think we're generally in favor of starting to introduce this, but how do we want to do that?
    • David: One suggestion is to start with Patient and use it as the test ground. David will not be there in January but can help facilitate beforehand.
    • Mario suggests that Richard support David
    • 1) Do we agree that it should be patient? 2) Who is going to do it? 3) Do we choose a different track? 4) Do we agree it's a good idea but do it in May instead?
    • Brian Post suggests we do a test run, but is not interested in running Patient and Scheduling tracks.
      • MOTION to draft email and post on lists to solicit volunteer to be track lead for Patient to work with Richard and David: Lloyd/Brian Post
      • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: David will draft communication to that effect
  • Action items
    • Need to send tracker to Andy Stechishin to be added to tooling list (unassigned)
      • Lloyd will pass on to Andy - add to next week
    • Anne to forward expiring FMG members to TSC for reappointment (John, Brian Post, Brian Pech)
      • Will be on Monday's agenda
    • Lloyd to provide feedback to US Realm regarding proposed extension review process
      • Anne to ask if Brian Pech can take it up with US Realm
    • Lloyd to discuss NIB timing with Lynn
      • Complete. Lloyd will update timelines appropriately
    • Anne to add NIB submission/FHIR review timing to next TSC agenda (Anne needs clarification)
      • No longer necessary - remove
  • Review Items
    • Pharmacy FHIR Maturity Project
      • Group reviews.
      • Eric will take back comments to Pharmacy. Needs clarification scope.
      • Will bring back for next week
    • Ballot items
      • Item 8222: Addressed by monitoring process. Extensions and profiles need to be vetted by the WG responsible for the resource or data type that they're proposed to be applied to, but we didn't put timing on it initially. Should IGs get them approved before they can publish at all? Before they can go to DSTU? Or before they can get to FMM 3? Lloyd proposes that it can't be balloted STU until extensions/profiles being proposed are vetted by the respective WGS. US Realm also needs to approve US Realm extensions. Approvals must occur each time the extesion or profile goes to ballot. If there is a conflict, it should come to FMG to arbitrate.
      • MOTION to establish a process whereby suggested extensions and profiles to a resource must have been accepted by the WG that owns the resource before it can go to ballot. FMG will resolve disputes: Hans/John
      • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: Hans will draft formal policy for endorsement and distribution
  • Discussion Topics
    • Solicitation of volunteers to help OO
      • Still have challenge of timeline but some help has been secured. Too soon to tell if it will be sufficient.
    • Additional expectations regarding criteria for normative
      • Add for next week
    • Balloting discussion with TSC
      • Need to put together a PSS around the proposed new balloting process.
      • ACTION: Lloyd will begin draft
    • Other updates from WGM
      • Add for next week
    • Lori Reed-Fourquet joins to discuss upcoming project and how to get it approved/co-sponsored. Lloyd explains process and that it's unlikely that it would be cosponsored by FMG but that it should be reviewed by FMG. Lori asks about resources. Lloyd states they won't go to ballot until September next year if they're new (and probably not until January 2018). Discussion over the resources they're looking to develop. Lloyd notes that in addition to PHER, Patient Care may be relevant to add. Draft ballot could provide preliminary review. PA will be looking at it as well. Lori asks where additional expertise can be found. Lloyd notes that each WG that is listed as sponsor or cosponsor has significant FHIR resources and a FHIR liaison. Project will come to FMG for review automatically as part of the process.
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management/discussion topics (David/Brian)
      • Connectathon oversight/documentation request from Viet Nguyen
        • Add for next week
  • Build is currently not working. Issues are being addressed.
  • Adjourned at 5:32 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20161005 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2016 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.