20141104 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
  4. Management
  5. Governance
  6. Methodology (30 minutes)
    1. FHIR WG
    2. BAM sections Review:
      1. Section 7 Business Architecture Bo, Lorraine
      2. Section 8 Implementation Lorraine
  7. Other business and planning
  8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: YYYYMMDD
Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Julian, Tony/Constable, Lorraine Note taker(s) Julian, Tony//Constable, Lorraine
Attendee Name Affiliation
. Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
R Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Hufnagel, Steve ?????
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
X Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
. Guests
. Knapp, Paul Knapp Consulting
.
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

  1. Agenda and minute approval
    1. Motion to approve agenda and Minutes (Andy s/ Zoran)
    2. Vote (3-0-0)
  2. FHIR WG
    1. They are not proposing a change to FMG/FMB
    2. At present, responsibility for these areas are managed by an unofficial “core team” with input from various WGs including ITS, CGIT, MnM and Vocab. However, because these “core” aspects are central to what FHIR is and how it works, it has proven challenging to devolve responsibility to existing WGs and even if this were possible, the necessary tight coordination would be difficult to maintain.
    3. The organization is capable of having responsible WG's do it.
    4. We should not have FHIR core group outside of the present structure
    5. Paul: There is value to create this - to deal with the aspects that dont fall into other Work Groups.
    6. Lorraine: Lloyd was against a FHIR WG orginally.
    7. Paul: Many of the aspects would not survive scrutiny at the TSC. We need to pull out the arguments for what it will do: there are requirements which are not detailed.
    8. Lorraine: ArB is concerned with the BAM aspects.
    9. Paul: There are domain committee concerns:, e.g. profiles belong to Templates, not FHIR. How does the organization maintain transparency, etc if we distribute scope to other WG's. We should consolidate vocab and Core across the domain. If we spread to CDA, etc, vocab would be gutted, and would not have convertability between platforms.
    10. Lorraine: Which was Lloyds original concern. Which CDA is doing.
    11. Paul: We are trying to undo what CDA is doing. Different Management groups makes sense, but we need once governance body. Pushing forward of the FHIR WG allows us to validate the notion of separation of concerns.
    12. Lorraine: We went through a pass with STRUCDOC for separation of concerns: Management, Governance, Methodology.
    13. Paul: FHIR began as a project, so we decided to forgo some measures so we can move forward quickly. MnM should be the methodology, FHIR the resources that dont belong to other groups. Continue projects to maintain focus of accelerated development. We should not have any further tasks that are not parked somewhere, e.g. publishing, tooling, should come out of the FHIR core zone.
    14. Lorraine: Time to go from teenager to adult.
    15. Paul: We owe it to the members as well as the core team.
    16. Zoran: Well said.
    17. Lorraine: How do we frame ArB in the question.
    18. Paul: This morning we asked them to , because there are not clear specifics, Ken wants mission and charter. Asked them to list the picture of the world : How much vocab are they thinking? The language does not settle this, it raises flags. ArB needs data as to what will work with Governance, Management, Methodology. What about publishing - infrastructure support as well as tooling. Need to look at it from a business perspective. Then ArB can examine concerns for the organization. Too much concentration of influence in a small place. Should FMG be elected instead of appointed, should there be restrictions on participants. PLA could shape the architecture and feed back to ArB.
    19. Paul: we should get the info: FTSD should send to WGs - with consideration from TSC and PLA. Should we have groups in the other verticals. Hope that if spreading in paralled it will be faster than if we serialize.
    20. Lorraine: Get the changes to the BAM w/o a Governance board for each product family. May need to invite PLA to the ArB.
    21. Paul: We want to move on with conviction.
    22. Lorraine: We told Ken that ArB should not be Governance board, but methodology for governance. We have ArB rep on usrealm and TSC.
    23. Paul: It is not culturaly hard to do. You disolve the FGB, and a few move to the overarching group.
    24. Lorraine: Basically you have described the TSC.
    25. Paul: Governance is appointed.
    26. Cecil: It should not be.
    27. Paul: The members representing the Product division will be elected , and others from the general.
    28. Tony: Do we need a new management/governance group.
    29. Paul: Single governance group fulfils the needs of the organization.
    30. Cecil: We have governance. FHIR went outside the normal governance.
    31. Lorraine: FHIR was the first attempt to put into governance, management, methodology.
    32. Paul: we should reflect on the structure.
    33. Cecil: there is nothing we did in FHIR that made us more SAIF aware. We created an additional level of governance that did not apply the consistency.
    34. Lorraine: Organization intended to SAIF. The BAM does not inherently create separate groups.
    35. Cecil: SAIF sets up a canonical process.
    36. Lorraine: Which is why we are changing the BAM to a single governance board. It is not in the model, but in the notes and documents.
    37. Paul: Need updated document, response from PLA: TSC needs a first cut final stucture. We are 4-5 weeks from an answer.
    38. Lorraine: They want to have this done by SanAntonio.
    39. Paul: I raised this as a desire, but it is not a requirement. It is a core team that is a project - so they can do what they want until we bring them in.
    40. Andy: they want to hold meetings with binding decisions, and need the structure to do so. MnM could create additional co-chairs for a cycle to achieve their desires.
    41. Andy: PLA - Making progress addressing V2. There is an interest in inviting key individuals from V2. InM will be methodology, looking at creating Publishing is management. Need a governance group.
    42. Paul: Desire to moving to an overarching group.
    43. Lorraine:We have enough material to share. I need another set of eyes for section 7 part 2.
    44. Zoran: I might be able to do that early next week.
    45. Lorraine: I am focused on changing the EA model to show a single governance board. Section 8 should be developed with PLA. The work we bit off was too large. We could imply reorganization.
    46. Andy: How to get from R&D to real.
  3. Adjournment
    1. Adjourned at 6:06 P.M. Eastern

Tony Julian (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)