2017-03-15 FMG concall

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

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

(voice and screen)

Date: 2017-03-15
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 x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve .

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2017-03-08_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
  • Action items
    • New balloting process PSS
      • Brian to update on Publishing
    • Anne to update liaison spreadsheet once transition to BRR takes place - on hold for approvals
    • Josh to invite one of the authors of the SOA methodology document to an upcoming call (2017-03-15)
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Ran out of time on TSC - add for next week
    • David to send out request for Connectathon proposals with due date of 3/22
    • Stale Items - Actions
      • David will suggest some words to add to the summary spreadsheet to explain the columns
  • Disussion Topics
    • QA process update
    • Can items that were draft in ballot be non-draft in spec?
    • Scopes
    • FMM issues in spreadsheet
    • Review of NA items
    • Comfort level w/FMM targets
    • Codes used for structureal cleared
    • confrm decision about version
    • GF#13062 - RequestGroup is missing status.
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2017-03-08_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Paul
  • Action items
    • New balloting process PSS
      • Brian to update on Publishing
    • Anne to update liaison spreadsheet once transition to BRR takes place - on hold for approvals
    • Josh to invite one of the authors of the SOA methodology document to an upcoming call (2017-03-15)
      • Will come next week
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Ran out of time on TSC - add for next week
    • David to send out request for Connectathon proposals with due date of 3/22
    • Stale Items - Actions
      • David will suggest some words to add to the summary spreadsheet to explain the columns
  • Disussion Topics
    • QA process update
      • GF 13017:
        • MOTION to leave as is: John/Brian Post
      • GF 13060 - may change modifiers on specific elements. Approve summary flags and not the modifer aspect.
        • MOTION to approve by John/Paul
      • GF 13057 - two different binding names that point to identical value sets. Proposal to get rid of the one that says 2 at the end. Taken care of by e-vote
      • GF 13056 - done
      • GF 13062 - RequestGroup is missing status
        • completed by evote
    • Can items that were draft in ballot be non-draft in spec?
      • Lloyd: If at a 0 going into ballot, can't be 1 in publication. 1 says this is STU, 0 says it's draft. Grahame: Not sure we said FMM levels were hooked up to ballot status. Lloyd: We can't have a situation where FMM 1 things are STU and others are draft. Grahame: If the resource meets the other rules for 1 or 2, no reason why it can't be FMM 1 or 2 even if it's draft in the standard sense. Lloyd: There's nothing in the spec that tells you that it's considered to be draft or STU other than the maturity level. John: So those things that were at FMM 0 or did not exist in STU3 cannot progress higher than 0 in the STU publication. Paul: Lloyd is saying you can't publish at a higher level than you were in the ballot. Lloyd: Correct. When we balloted in September, there is nothing on the resource that tells you whether or not it's a draft or an STU candidate resource. All we show is maturity level, and when you look at maturity level, FMM0 is draft. If it balloted draft, we must publish that way. Grahame: We can mark things as FMM 1 or 2 if they are, even if they're officially draft. Paul: In terms of ballot strength, we have draft, STU, and Normative. Something could be balloted draft, but coming out of the ballot it's now FMM 2. Lloyd: So you can't get to level 3. If you were 0 in the ballot the highest you can be is 2.
    • Scopes
      • Group reviews scopes tab on QA tracker. No additional scopes noted. WG has identified candidate scopes and we review to make sure it's appropriate. Brian Post notes that Patient has scopes listed that aren't included in the resource. Paul wonders if post-coordinating systems is an appropriate scope for CodeSystem. Lloyd notes we've exercised all of these items with CodeSystem. Updates sheet to reflect that Code system maintenance is out of scope. Adds Genomics to Observation. Noted that Patient-reported outcomes is not covered and is flagged as an FMM caveat. Patient: PA questioned if clinical trials was a relevant scope for patient. Brian Post will take the question back to PA. Flagged as FMM caveat. Also flagged: public health and anonymized reporting. Bundle: Added signatures as an FMM caveat as they are not yet reviewed. StructureDefinition: Data element flagged as FMM caveat since it has not yet been reviewed.
        • MOTION that value set scope is appropriate: Paul/Grahame
        • VOTE: all in favor
        • MOTION that Code System scope is appropriate: David/Grahame
        • VOTE: Brian Post abstains. Remaining in favor.
        • MOTION that Observation scope is appropriate: Grahame/Brian Post
        • VOTE: all in favor
        • MOTION that Patient scope is appropriate with caveats: Josh/Brian Post
        • VOTE: all in favor
        • MOTION that Diagnostic Report scope is appropriate: Grahame/Hans
        • VOTE: all in favor
        • MOTION that Binary scope is appropriate: Brian Post/David
        • VOTE: Paul abstains. Remaining in favor.
        • MOTION that Bundle scope is appropriate with the specified caveat: Brian Pech/David
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • MOTION that OperationOutcome scope is appropriate: Hans/Grahame
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • MOTION that StructureDefinition scope is appropriate: Grahame/Paul
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • MOTION that AuditEvent scope is appropriate: Grahame/Brian Post
        • VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
  • Anne leaves
  • Josh leaves
  • RiskAssessment resource has a warning about getting MnM approval to use "comment" instead of "annotation.
    • MOTION to temporarily waive the warning (for purposes of this release only): Grahame/Brian Post
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Went back to resource scopes tab of QA spreadsheet to look at DocumentReference.
    • MOTION to approve scope as filled out by John M: Grahame/John
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Reviewed list of resources going to FMM3+ that needed FMG approval for "code" elements
    • Questionnaire
      • MOTION to accept: Grahame/Brian Post
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • Location
      • MOTION to accept: Grahame/Brian Post
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • PractitionerRole
      • MOTION to accept: Grahame/Brian Post
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • MOTION to approve changing the release number for STU 3 to be 3.0: Grahame/Paul
  • VOTE: All in favor
  • David left
  • Tracker #13063 Brian/Grahame - persuasive: unan

Adjourned 6:03pm Eastern


Next Steps

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

2017-03-22 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2017 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.