20130522 FGB concall

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

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 334-756-981

Date: 2013-05-22
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ron Parker Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Chair/CTO Members Members
x Ron Parker x George (Woody) Beeler x Ewout Kramer
x John Quinn x Grahame Grieve
observers/guests x Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe
x Brian Pech
x Hugh Glover

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20130515 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Lynn will pull whatever references are in the minutes on policy and process of incorporation of donated resources to a wiki page and send the link for elaboration - see FGB_Resource_Contribution_policy_draft
  • Grahame will bring a draft approach to policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability.
  • finish Risk assessment on upcoming concall when Ron has had time to update;
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Conformity Assessment
    2. Appeal Process / Escalation
      • What is the appeal process for resources not chosen for inclusion in the ballot?
      • What is the appeal / escalation process for Management decisions?
      • What is the appeal / escalation process for Governance decisions? Responsibilities for resources (education, conformity process, appeal process)

Minutes

Convened at 4:08 PM

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review - Ewout notes vendors (CorePoint and iNterfaceware) at WGM sought FHIR-light conformance process.
  • Approve minutes of 20130515 FGB concall Motion by Woody, seconded by Grahame to approve. Unanimously approved.
  • FMG update - Ron did not attend this week
  • Methodology update- no update
  • Action Item review:
  • Grahame will bring a draft approach to policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability. Not ready
  • finish Risk assessment on upcoming concall when Ron has had time to update; not ready
    • Lynn will pull whatever references are in the minutes on policy and process of incorporation of donated resources to a wiki page and send the link for elaboration - see FGB_Resource_Contribution_policy_draft
      • IHE issues of taking control of Security Event resource, not the best example.
      • If major piece of work done for which we wish to give acknowledgement what does that look like? Otherwise that's what participation in HL7 is about, bringing your work (interoperability asset) drafted externally to the consensus group. HL7 must accept balloting and ongoing maintenance of that asset.
      • Bringing it to HL7 may relinquish rights, where HL7 may or may not use it, amend it for balloting, and so on.
      • Woody would like to assume the initial premise is that work done outside brought into HL7 is adopted just as other work done within HL7. Acknowledgement and thanks might be a different process. Third level is with an existing MOU for joint work where joint participation under the MOU such as with ISO might have dual voting. Fourth level is where the donator wishes to retain some control.
      • Ron cites V3 donations, with external entities developing significant contributions where they wish that their representation is the one that becomes standardized. However introduction to a consensus based standards organization must assume risk of change.
      • Austin notes they will be discussing this re:IHE on Friday.
      • Ron asks about the role of the authoritative SDO in JIC holds responsibility for development and maintenance of an asset, when balloted in other SDO has mutual endorsement of that work product. IHE looking to use the HL7 balloting pool as their extended member base.
      • Ron clarifies the contribution of resources to FHIR is not the same as the IHE model. Policy assertions basically restate Woody's notion. We are an accredited SDO and bringing content to HL7 these are the conditions that exist.
      • John notes it's a less-well-formed external contribution than CCOW was but the same principle applies.
      • Ron notes we need a statement of what it means to bring content to an accredited SDO. Subject to ballot process, thrown over the fence, or vested in the content and participating to represent their perspective.
      • Woody notes that anything brought in there is a predicate that a WG must sponsor that project and undertake the ballot. There must be resources to answer questions.
      • This raises the issue of a FHIR WG to be steward of the asset. Woody notes that if a resource comes in there must be a group assigned to review and sponsor its inclusion.
      • Woody notes that in 2005 they envisioned projects that would have the strength of a Work Group such as Clinical Statement, TermInfo, etc. Austin notes that balloting must be done by a WG, and reconciliation performed by the WG. TSC as the representation for the NIB, for the project is not an appropriate assignment. They could have their own concall passcode, web page, etc as an HL7 WG.
      • Should the FHIR project and NIB belong to MnM instead of TSC? Will they be responsible for reconciliation of resource material from other WGs?
      • Ron notes as a management exercise to ensure a ballot is completed and reconciliation performed, then MnM is the right 'Work Group'. FMG is really the group is where these things occur. Infrastructure reconciliation belongs in MnM space while resources may not. FMG delegated resources to other WGs to reconcile, notes Ewout.
      • FGB says 'this must be done', and FMG ensures that it happens. FMG would have to identify where the resource would land in the organization. Brian asks if FMG is sort of a supervisory 'group' with respect to resources. FMG has elements of a Work Group and elements of a Steering Division. Entry point to the organization for sourced content is the FMG. FMG must endure it has a landing point, that the contributor provides support through the first ballot, etc. Ewout adds that we expect FHIR to be extended by external resources but they must be willing to register them. Are we talking about core or extensions, asked Ron?
      • Registration of extensions as a form of contribution. Conformance assessment capability for consumers of FHIR assets should exist. Do you have core, extensions, and other related assets? Do you have core, and external resources? What is the HL7 responsibility if we have a registry of external resources and it's an unacceptable; if it's discoverable and FHIR -compliant it doesn't make it part of the standard.
      • Ron notes Grahame's intention was to ensure there weren't runaway extensions unmanaged by the core specification. How do we let people assert they have resources that are "FHIR-like". They may have an extension they register with HL7, not a balloted artifact.
      • Ron notes the Microsoft Flight Simulator which eventually became an open product still earns $$ for extensions and tooling around that asset. Entry-level conformance possibilities as mentioned by the vendors at the WGM due to the growing size of the specification further discussed.
      • What of external resources that HL7 would really like to add to the core set, asks Ewout. Woody suggests it is less likely to occur and we should address it when it arises.
      • Standard levels of conformance needed to enable interoperability between servers that support xyz pieces versus clients that support abc pieces, rather than a single all-encompassing conformance statement.
      • Need to add this discussion to the wiki page and extract declarative statements from it. Review on the next call, vote on as a group.
  • Adjourned 5:06 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Need to add this discussion to the wiki page and extract declarative statements from it. Review on the next call
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.