This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20130107 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2013-01-07 Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: Hugh | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes | |||||
| Co chairs | x | Hugh Glover | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | x | Ron Parker, FGB Chair | . | John Quinn, CTO | ||
| Members | Members | Observers/Guests | |||
| x | Lorraine Constable | x | John Moehrke | x | Lynn Laakso, scribe |
| Jean Duteau | x | Brian Pech | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | David Hay | ||||
| . | |||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20130102 FMG concall
- Administrative
- Action items
- Ron will have some precepts reviewed by FGB to FMG
- Lloyd will provide a slide to Austin for use Tuesday morning on expectation of FHIR liaison roles.
- Ron will take a proposal to the FGB for the documentation of an IHE approach to simulate the MOU with DICOM on working through an HL7 WG.
- Action items
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Remote access?
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Precepts
- Documents from RP
- Costs
- Fitting what we are doing on Wiki to precepts spreadsheet
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- What are timelines for ballot?
- Developing FMG Management Methodology - see FHIR Methodology Process and FHIR Guide to Designing Resources
- FHIR Design patterns - see FHIR Design Patterns
- Prioritization of methodology elements
- Process for "formally approving" guidelines and determining strength of enforcement
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- discussion continued
- Ballot Planning
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
Convened at 1:04 PM
- Agenda Check – add ballot reconciliation distribution to groups. Add ballot section prior to precepts. Lloyd/David move and unanimously approved
- Minutes from 20130102 FMG concall Approval moved David/Lorraine; unanimously approved
- Administrative
- Action items
- Ron will have some precepts reviewed by FGB to FMG (on agenda)
- Lloyd will provide a slide to Austin for use Tuesday morning on expectation of FHIR liaison roles. Not yet done.
- Ron will take a proposal to the FGB for the documentation of an IHE approach to simulate the MOU with DICOM on working through an HL7 WG. FGB has discussed but there's no proposal to proceed yet. Needs some formality of a motion to address that relationship and there is not yet a meeting scheduled with IHE and HL7 at Phoenix. FMG and FGB meeting scheduled for Friday Q2 but needs to be moved earlier for Ron – move to Q1. FMG has a quarter Tuesday Q2 and FGB on Tuesday Q1
- Action items
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian) – no change since last week
- FGB – defer to Precepts
- MnM – nothing to discuss
- FMG Liaisons – no updates
- Precepts
- Documents from RP – Ron refers to Lloyd's email. Discussion ensued of the 7 points raised. Risks are the things you apply governance vectors to. Difference between profile template and implementation guide reviewed. Profile is a set of constraints for one or more resources which incorporates V3 Template concept and conformance profile. Implementation guide is less structured or rigorous than a conformance assertion. Lloyd conceived of one artifact with formally structured stuff as well as guidance for the implementation of Profile. Governance and management execution with risks it mitigates, standards/ guidance/ policies to achieve the precept, and as types of constraints. 'Tuple' implies needing one from each of these boxes to be complete. For any one precept, you may have policy or standards or guidance and one of them may not necessarily be structured. He struggles with separating out precept goals/objectives, and conformity: standards, guidelines, conformity metrics. The "governance specialist" is really Charlie who has more experience with this. Ron recounts Woody's assertion that we should look at things emerging on the wiki and conformity assessment to reverse engineer, to avoid xyz and ensure abc for the bottom-up viewpoint from the product line as compared to the TSC evaluation of the top-down risk assessment. FMG needs to address quality and timeliness aspects of product development. FMG and FGB teams need to review what's on the wiki to enumerate and reverse engineer. ACTION ITEM: Ron will try to schedule with Charlie to attend Tuesday Q2.
- John joins.
- Balloting:
- what have we got from the ballot and how much allocation to be done?
- Lloyd reports 7 ballot sheets, 607 line items (460+ are Lloyd's)
- Next steps to identify groups owning content and delegate related content. Core approach issues to FMG or MnM, and core team issues triaged by FMG/MnM. Need also to identify which will be addressed in DSTU ballot scope or deferred. He expects to have this ready for Phoenix.
- Hugh asks if FMG will have to take direct responsibility for items to get followed through? There may be a number of things that fall to FMG that are not specific to individual WGs. Who will address draft resolutions/ dispositions to blocks of comments? Lloyd working on some of that now after filtering the initial list. Lloyd can assign blocks of stuff to Hugh or others based on their level of understanding and it can be reviewed by core team.
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- What are timelines for ballot? May or not? Need a plan as to how to resolve a go-no go decision.
- Ballot Planning
Adjourned 2:00 PM
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2013 Health Level Seven® International
