20140504 FGB FMG WGM Minutes

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

Location: Sonora

Date: 2014-05-04
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
x George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay
regrets Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) regrets Ron Parker
John Quinn
FMG Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk regrets Hugh Glover x Paul Knapp
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
observers/guests x Tony Julian
x Lynn Laakso, scribe


  • Roll Call

Sonora - Joint FHIR Management Group (FMG) & Governance Board (FGB) (LM, EK, GG)

  • Priorities for the week
  • Engagement & coverage in external initiatives


Lloyd convenes at 12:57PM

  • Agenda Check - Woody asks to if we need discussion on potential FHIR sessions for Paris - the core team has not been approached yet.
  • Priorities for the week
    • FHIR DSTU monitoring discussed for expectations for WGs ongoing during the DSTU period; please highlight this in each session with the work groups
    • FHIR Ballot Prep sets expectations for when things must be done, e.g. 2014-05-30 PSSes need to be submitted for profiles and resources as well as resource proposals for new resources and GForge environments need to be configured
      • Linkage between WGH and FHIR ballot contributions for credit for balloting still needs work.
      • Next deadline is 2014-09-21 after the Sept WGM for new resources complete, and changes from trackers are applied and the build is clean
      • QA done by Oct 12, Content final by Nov 24. DSTU R2 anticipated publication is March 2015.
      • Discussion ensued on predictions of comment volume, whether it would be similar to the last DSTU ballot or smaller. There will be more active implementers and testers at that time also.
      • Lloyd expects feedback by Friday on any concerns about the schedule from the Work Groups
    • DSTU QA criteria reviewed.
      • Appeal process for not meeting criteria reviewed.
      • Three (3) example contexts, 5-10 examples.
      • David asks if there is guidance on extensions and their QA; if standard extensions are used you must provide examples of their use.
      • Brian asks about the standard extensions and if they acknowledged such "standard" extensions shouldn't they be in the 80% and be in the standard? That is part of the evaluation criteria for going normative. They will evaluate which elements are used in implementations as criteria for inclusion in the normative standard, in addition to which resources have been implemented. Those that do not have demonstrated implementations may not be considered for inclusion in the normative version. John notes that resources wholly owned elsewhere may not follow this model.
      • Elements and search criteria reviewed for distinction within "family"
      • 7.b.E reviewed for constraints versus invariants.
      • David moves and John M seconds acceptance of the DSTU QA criteria.
  • Engagement & coverage in external initiatives
    • This goes back to a discussion on S&I Framework Initiatives. Brian adds that CIMI is interested as well - Lloyd notes there is a formal liaison and backup for CIMI but do we need to add one for the US Realm TF? The US Realm TF engagement to keep tabs on ONC is important to have the liaison to FHIR.
      • John M notes concern with IHE not advancing resources written for them by Grahame.
      • Liaisons report to FMG and this information may not get to the FGB; some liaisons have relationships at the management level not a technical level. Should FGB have its own relationships with those external bodies? Woody feels the FGB might set some principles around this but liaison relationships with external organizations are already formalized with Board appointments.
      • Grahame notes that meaningful arrangements with external organizations involve governance decisions. JohnM notes the business-level liaison and technical level liaison roles need to be recognized separately. There would be different terms of engagement.
      • Woody agrees the FGB has an interest in these liaison arrangements but FGB might not be the group to manage them. FGB may oversee a liaison relationship but not actively participate. Lloyd notes that when we evaluate a relationships with an external body that it be reviewed by the TSC to pass the formalization of the relationship to the FGB to establish parameters of the relationship and the maintenance of the relationships delegated to FMG. Issues of the framing of the relationships would go back to FGB.
      • Question of stewardship of such relationships by ORC. Relationships start before formal agreements are ratified at the HQ level and ORC is involved.
      • FGB will draft a narrative of the approach for relative responsibilities of the different groups. FGB, FMG, ORC, BOD, TSC, etc.
      • Grahame notes that we should make a list somewhere, e.g. on the Wiki of formal external engagements.
    • Jean adds that the International Council report from Chuck was there is a FHIR conformance profile under consideration for Aegis. Lloyd notes that they have not been given specific marching orders for that. Clarification will be sought.

Adjourned 1:47PM

Next Steps

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


WGM agenda on SVN

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International