This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20141027 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: 2014-10-27
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
Woody Beeler Lorraine Constable Grahame Grieve David Hay (FMG)
Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Ron Parker
John Quinn
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
Anne Wizauer, scribe
Lynn Laakso


(We did not reach quorum on this call; canceled)

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20141020 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    • Draft guidance on managing responsibility for the trackers (Lloyd)
    • 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)
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Conformity Assessment


Convened at 4:13 pm without Chair.

  • Group weighed discussion without benefit of decision-making. Grahame suggested discussing public presence and document advertised escalation to FGB process. We do have a governance tab on the wiki - put link to governance process there on escalation? Or we could have a separate link on escalation. In terms of change request, there is the resolution and then subsequent ballot process. We don't want someone who is a non-member to have full access to the escalation process. Two or three different classes of escalation, so a stand-alone page would probably be more appropriate. Who would like to write up the escalation process? Lloyd volunteers. Action: Lloyd to write up. Add escalation as a 5th link under governance; add additional links to it from the change tracker submission page and from the resource and profile proposals submission page, and anywhere else we think it might be useful.
  • Group reviewed FHIR change requests information that Lloyd created and sent to Andy for review. What happens to changes that have not been applied? Any changes that are approved will be applied prior to ballot. Anything else would be deferred. Once we decide that we're comfortable with this document we'll have to push it out to the workgroups. Lorraine concerned about section on approvals. Lloyd clarifies that If something is a correction and it is clear, then we don't need further workgroup approval. How shall we prioritize in January, asks Ewout? We'll want to have a policy around deferment - what is okay to defer and what isn't. Lorraine states that things that are broader-based and affect more than one WG should be prioritized, like patient care/OO. Lloyd agrees and says we should identify what our candidates are for normative - what will have sufficient breadth/depth, and prioritize the application of any changes of those resources prior to publication of DSTU. Lorraine suggests putting a priority on the tracker. Grahame is going through and applying everything he can that has been approved. Lloyd says we need to provide guidance on prioritization, which will primarily come from whether or not is a priority to be normative. We'll need to make a call on what is essential for us to declare normative the first time around. Lorraine is concerned that people changing things in the middle of work is disorienting; she is concerned about the editorial team making changes without communicating those changes. It tends to undermine the volunteers in the workgroups, especially people we're trying to train as volunteers. Lloyd added a bullet to address this concern. Multiple conflict dates also create a conflict - there's a target for December, and a target for getting major changes done so servers, etc. can be updated and ready for Connectathon. Consultation and coordination are the key, so long as WGs and editorial teams are aware of each other's work and priorities, all will be well. This will be taken to FMG to take a look at before it is pushed out to WGs with more formal endorsement from FGB next week.
  • Group reviewed FHIR Profile and IG Balloting Added "other realm" to separate implementation guide section. If FMG approves a separate IG it comes under the general NIB instead of the responsible WG. Other than that, Lorraine feels this is reasonable. Lloyd added a section regarding NIBs. Group discussed the use of the word conformance and whether or not it is appropriate.
  • Add to next week's agenda: discussion on prioritization guidelines for next DSTU, in particular what are we targeting for normative in 2017.

Lorraine asked about webinar for doing profiles - Lloyd may end up doing another one after reviewing it. Lorraine says we should have liaisons publicize it; Lloyd will encourage them.

  • Meeting concluded at 5:02.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lloyd to write up escalation process and add escalation as a 5th link under governance section and additional links where useful
  • Anne to add prioritization guidelines for next DSTU to next week's agenda
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

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