This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20141020 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: 136-494-157

Date: 2014-10-20
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Lynn/Anne
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
x Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay (FMG)
Regrets Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Ron Parker
John Quinn
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe
x Anne Wizauer

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20141013 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Followup with provider member candidate (Dave)
    • Guidance on FHIR Profile balloting (Lloyd)
    • Draft guidance on managing responsibility for the trackers (Lloyd)
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-


Minutes

Woody convened the meeting at 4:08pm

  • Roll call completed
  • Agenda review: Agenda approved with no additions.
  • Minutes review: Ewout moved to approve minutes from 2014-10-13; Lloyd seconded.
  • Action Items:
    • Woody is not sure of the status of followup with the provider member candidate in Dave's absence
    • FHIR Profile balloting and draft guidance for managing responsibility for the trackers: Lloyd is nearly done with the documentation and should be ready for next week.
  • FMG update: Got started on approving profiles and creating PSSs. Lorraine suggests notifying groups when things are approved. FHIR Workgroup Proposal was under heavy discussion last week.
  • Group discussed what FGB should focus on for the upcoming months. Precepts and Principles have been generated. Group is not responsible for day-to-day workings of FHIR; perhaps meetings don't need to be weekly? Woody shares concern. Grahame's opinion is there are two things group is leaving out: 1) make sure that our relationships are solid with other groups, and 2) figure out where with regards to pushing the boundaries and being proactive in determining who does what. Who is responsible for what bits of management within the organization?
    • FMG vs. executive committee, for example. The EC has not gotten back to the group regarding what they believe the process should be regarding approving the use of the FHIR name and logo. This group has not discussed that particular issue.
    • Permission to use the name/logo of FHIR; EC thinks they should approve permissions for use, but others believe FMG should approve. Grahame is getting back to the EC to further discussion of who should make the decisions. Lorraine suggests that the FGB assist in the determination process; Woody agrees and suggests that the group help draft criteria.
    • Two issues: conformance of organizations with permission to use, and withdrawal of previously granted permission. Woody: FHIR is a specification of the core concepts and resources balloted through HL7. If we use this definition, then it is easier to control. But if someone uses the FHIR tool to build 5 resources, those aren't FHIR. Grahame: People would have to submit a document of their intentions. Woody: Once we have a normative FHIR, are there resources not within the ballot? Grahame: There will be lots of those within a process; different resources in different stages on the lifecycle. We want people to define their own resources. Woody: FHIR is not just a methodology. And if you say that, you're clearer in the space you're trying to protect. Grahame: Custom use of the tooling or spec can result in bad usage that is hard to prevent. We've talked about having FHIR Experts, but how to assert that they are experts? Woody: add to task list - work with EC to further develop process
  • Other issues:

What do we need to be doing to coordinate with EC? Grahame suggested we should be more proactively engaging with EC, but how? Who? Presumably Chuck, Mark, John Quinn, Karen, Stan. Grahame suggests asking them to join us to discuss how they see the relationship. Woody wonders if we have an unusual number of things that need to go to the EC or are stalling there? Grahame says no, not other than licensing, but we should meet with them regarding governance-level policies. How did Vanderbilt know to ask the EC for licensing permission? There are instructions in the spec and in Grahame's blog post to contact the FMG. Woody suggests having Chuck on the call to discuss governance issues next week or the week after.

  • Woody moves to adjourn; Lloyd seconded.


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Followup with provider member candidate (Dave)
  • Guidance on FHIR Profile balloting (Lloyd)
  • Draft guidance on managing responsibility for the trackers (Lloyd)
  • Work with EC to further develop governance process; invite Chuck to next week's (or following week's) call to discuss (Grahame)
  • Determine optimal schedule for FMG conference calls (all)


Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.