This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130702 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: 2013-07-02
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
John Quinn x Grahame Grieve
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20130625 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Ron to pitch the Vitality Assessment model to the FMG and talk with them about coming up with metrics
    • Grahame will bring a draft approach to policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability
    • Ron and Lynn will review FGB_Resource_Contribution_policy_draft policy statements and draft bullets
    • Ron would like to summarize the FMG as WG recommendation for review with this group and bring to FMG on their next call
  • FMG update -
    • suggest FMG only grant SVN access to those with a formal role within HL7 and continue discussion with FMG on process
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Substantive changes to FHIR (PA) between WGMs - advisability and permissibility with smaller participation


Minutes

Convened at 8:07 AM

  • Agenda Review - Ewout asks about where the FHIR falls in the HL7 portfolio and relations to existing standards.
  • Approve minutes of 20130625 FGB concall Woody moves and Ewout seconds, unanimously approved.
  • Action Item review:
    • Ron to pitch the Vitality Assessment model to the FMG and talk with them about coming up with metrics; not yet - FMG time spent on contribution policy and concept of WG
    • Grahame will bring a draft approach to policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability
    • Ron and Lynn will review FGB_Resource_Contribution_policy_draft policy statements and draft bullets - email pushback and discussion has not been added to the wiki page. If asserted through the cochairs or other formal responsibility within HL7 we may presume they recognize they are contributing as part of their role in the organization. Persons who do not have a formal role (under a coarsely grained policy for now) need to have a sense of what they're doing with their contribution and what that means. Suggestion was to require a contributor to read and acknowledge a policy statement regarding the collective IP of the FHIR asset. Woody cautions that we not establish process for any contributor to any WG to sign forms. Membership does implicitly and explicitly include contributions to IP. Contribution to the asset, derivative work, or extensions should require membership in order to contribute. Ewout notes that the NL affiliate work would bring back contributions through the affiliate.
      • Ron asks about those requesting SVN access? You must be a member for write/update. Woody notes that the SVN for FHIR is controlled differently from the rest of the repository.
      • Ewout notes the concern with those that wish to have influence in how the contribution is used and distributed.
      • Grahame joins and notes you may have IHE profile functionality over the FHIR resources. Need to be open to the possibility of other types of agreements. If we accept a use case proposed by IHE as a fundamental use case and ballot for comments we have an arrangement with IHE.
      • If they offer it and accept it to be an HL7 copyright, then no problem. If they object then you pull up the form, notes Woody.
      • Grahame finds it insufficient; if it's developed as part of an HL7 project that's the normal process but if a contribution is made around which a project is formed that's a different matter.
      • We don't want to discourage people to come and play, notes Ron. Grahame notes prior collaborations have been formed around agreements in scope but haven't been made formal nor explicit. Contributions like CCOW and GELLO didn't mesh well with the rest of the product in HL7.
      • Ron notes that FMG acknowledges the need to manage this but wishes for some guidance. Also want to distinguish between the mechanics of contribution in SVN and the policy. Simple statement could be that the person or their organization is a member of HL7. Ewout notes that all resources have so far been placed under the custody of a WG; suggests that we must find a WG willing to take responsibility for it. Gil, for example, would bring a contribution to a WG for review, and the WG (cochairs) would make the commit to SVN. Ewout notes the FMG would also serve as a good entry point as they track the resources and who's responsible for them as well. Ron counters that a WG as custodian for a contributed resource needs to understand what has been done. Ewout notes if the WG allows the author to have SVN access to post their material they also get a notice from SVN when a commit is made. Ron states the policy might be that contributions then are on behalf of that custodial group as verified by FMG.
      • org-to-org discussion could be raised when the situation comes up. Woody notes that our copyright needs to be asserted as early as possible. Is there pro-forma in the FHIR editing that stashes an HL7 copyright notation in material? Grahame says it's not automatic. How would we in HL7 spot it if someone had an external copyright assertion stashed somewhere? Grahame notes he would spot it, and it's textually searchable.
    • Ron would like to summarize the FMG as WG recommendation for review with this group and bring to FMG on their next call
      • Interesting language came up on the call in this regard. FMG wants to be something but not a "work group". They asserted that they are appointed by the TSC and have accountability to them. However, the TSC appointed them because there was no other structure at the time. FGB asked for recommendations and were ratified by TSC. They wish another structure through which accountability is held.
      • FMG should report through the FGB in a 'governance' steering division. T3SD recommended due to similarities to V2.x publishing WG. This however points out other issues in existing structure.
      • They like the appointed nature of the membership, offering commitment. FGB strove to obtain balanced representation across the organization in those appointments. They also like the idea that membership is a deterministic approach and members can be "swapped out".
      • Woody notes that there are board-appointed WGs also in T3SD, just not TSC-appointed. Each WG in T3SD also needs to have a board-appointed cochairs/liaison.
      • Language of "work group" not the right association, but want a normalized reporting structure. Would like to have similar groups with responsibility for management and publication of certain product groups in the same SD. Management groups are not like work groups, but need language to that effect. Need description of similarities, differences. Among responsibility for Management groups include defining risks to asset, product family with operational aspects to ensure the continuity of the product family. Board-appointed cochairs may not be appropriate for a management group while the governance boards having a board liaison may be. Ron will work with Austin to develop some language around these definitions.
  • FHIR placement in the product portfolio - better wayfinding to FHIR information from the web site - add action item to begin work on the product brief

Adjourned 8:59 AM.


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • begin work on the product brief
  • Ron will work with Austin to develop some language around these definitions of management group vs work group in T3SD
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

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