This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20131008 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: 2013-10-08
Time: 8:00 AM 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 Ewout Kramer
John Quinn Grahame Grieve
observers/guests x Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review -
  • Approve minutes of 20130922 FGB WGM, 20130927_FMG_WGM_meeting
  • Action Item review:
    • FMG & FGB to each discuss term staggering
    • Ron will schedule Woody, Grahame, Ron, and Austin/John to be on a call to evaluate policy assertions with conformity to ISO Datatypes
    • Ron develop precepts from the risks (conformity assessments, appeal processes, composition of FMG)
    • Ron will address immediate need for "BAM-lite" with ArB.
    • Ron will follow up with John to establish a protocol for FGB chair representation in external stakeholder relationships wrt FHIR.
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    • FGB composition to support DSTU adoption customer base
    • Extract policy assertions and decision criteria from management decisions related to connectathon registration
    • criteria for seeking policy assertions,
    • escalation points on risk items triggering governance action


Minutes

Convened at 8:11 without quorum

  • Agenda Review - any feedback on Grahame's blog on CDA?
  • Discussion on protocol for FGB chair representation in external stakeholder relationships wrt FHIR. IHE, ONC S&I conversations with Grahame continuing to happen. Should be at least two HL7 resources. Two persons in the room from either organization are really needed to preserve reputational resource. Need to set precepts on what is the nature of what we want to accomplish, what is the nature of the roles. Charter is regarding on the establishment of product family but setting expectations going forward for fostering the asset need work.
    • Woody notes that the FGB is small to resource this availability. Could expand this into officers of HL7 having formal roles for representation. Guidelines for representing HL7 exist. Discussions between Grahame and Fridsma's staff on what is possible, is difficult to control. Commitments to work on behalf of HL7 would not be permissible. ONC might engage Grahame directly; maintaining financial solvency when devoting so much time to the FHIR effort is at risk. Funding by HL7 for solvency to get the DSTU done, makes sense. How to use the DSTU might be a development ONC takes with Grahame.
    • Fair and balanced contribution is needed. There are already signs of exhaustion in the core team and the timeline contains so much. Rapid and ad-hoc decisions without representation of HL7 membership are at risk.
    • There are others within HL7 that accept funding from HL7 as well as other sources, and we put faith in that individual, notes Woody.
    • Ron notes there are still people that feel they're not being heard, and FGB has opportunity to assert principles. Grahame notes we intend to get something out there, not intended to be perfect, but enough to start working with and not theoretical. Expectations to quickly get to DSTU has been challenged due to overwhelming interest demanding more rigor. Core team needs a bit of breathing room - they can't sustain this level of energy much longer. Austin describes how the TSC has been asserting the trial nature of DSTU to help provide what Ron calls "soft cover". Setting the expectation for lack of rigor in DSTU by TSC, now FGB now needs to set the explicit expectations for FHIR specifically. Woody cautions against putting more pressure on the team. You can change a DSTU before it goes normative as well. We must avoid a statement a priori on whether they will do DSTU update, second ballot or go straight to normative. Ron suggests a political gesture and not explicit statement but the principles behind the DSTU. DSTU needs to be structurally sound enough to explore these trial implementations. When it does go to normative status these experiences and applied evaluations will be considered. Need to take pressure off the core team but not necessarily extend the timeline as that will not guarantee better quality. Sufficient due diligence will be provided. Woody cautions that we must express it carefully so that it doesn't represent more work.
    • Action Item: Ron will put a narrative together. We also need to address FGB membership and composition. We would need to revise the Mission and Charter and send to TSC for approval. Imagine 5 years from now, already normative, and we need to make significant update - need representations from organizations with interest and commitment in use of that asset. In addition, we need domain expertise view represented. Austin notes that if FGB does not make quorum next week that Ron just bring the proposed changes directly to the TSC as we cannot make quorum. We could name Austin as an individual outside of ex officio status.
  • Woody will be on Grahame's time zone in two weeks and back in three. Ewout may have stated that he would be away for two weeks.



Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Ron to develop a narrative to set the explicit expectations for FHIR specifically based on the TSC's expectations for DSTU level of rigor
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

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