20150304 FMG concall
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes
|Date: 2015-mm-dd |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair:||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|Quorum = chair + 4||yes/no|
|Co chairs||x||David Hay||x||Lloyd McKenzie|
|.||John Quinn, CTO|
|Hans Buitendijk||Regrets||Brian Postelthwaite||x||Paul Knapp||x||Anne W., scribe|
|x||Josh Mandel||Regrets||John Moehrke||X||Brian Pech||x||Austin Kreisler|
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20150225_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Continue review of pending resources
- Lloyd to send preferred language on FHIR license terms back to HQ
- Approval Items
- Discussion Topics
- Adding terminology services as a "standard" track for Connectathons
- Clinician Connectathon tooling (if time available)
- Action items
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Quorum not met. David chairing.
- Additions to agenda: update on ballot process PSS from Austin Kreisler. Lloyd moves to accept agenda; Josh seconds. None opposed or abstained.
- Due to lack of quorum: discussed revised FHIR license verbiage on call and then e-vote to others for quorate decision. Lloyd presented revisions; intention to ensure clear that the term is protected but prevent burnout when reference is made 20-30 times (mark must be used in the first place of prominence). Lloyd moves that the FMG endorse the updated document, propogating it into the DSTU 1 publication and appear henceforth into new versions of the FHIR standard. Josh seconds. Paul notes that the changes look at it from an editing perspective rather than a trademark perspective. Austin states that the Board over-rode the lawyer and agreed to a happy medium. Josh raises issue of the phrase “this document” – what exactly is licensed under creative commons? Lloyd reads it as the composition is produced under creative commons separate from components. There are pointers to things like the Wiki that are not part of the same package. Josh wants us to attempt to make it explicit. Lloyd wonders if we can bound it by this specification, the content downloadable [link]. Lloyd updates the document to reflect. Issue noted on chapter 16 of the GOM being in conflict with CCO declaration. Lloyd will take changes back to Mark.
- Lloyd takes over chair due to connectivity issues. Brian Pech joins and quorum reached.
- Austin updates group on PSS progress. All previously identified WGs have signed on as cosponsors – still needs to talk to PIC as a potential cosponsor as they have become a regular WG. They will be involved in updating the cochair handbook. Document going to TSC on Monday. Comment process opens on Monday. Anne to add call time for reconciliation of comments.
- Add FHIR Appendix to HL7 Attachment Specification project approval request: Lloyd hopes they at least point to MHD. If the intention is to produce material, more information is required. Anne to contact Craig with questions.
- Terminology services as a “standard” track for Connectathons: Grahame made this suggestion. Is this something we would like to do? Davis asks what the downside would be. Lloyd states that it’s a question of volume of balls in the air – more tracks, more coordination – but after we’ve done it once or twice it shouldn’t be problematic. Discussion over potential to include it in Paris Connectathon. Paul wants to avoid people perceiving that we’re giving them terminology servers. Group agrees that this is not the case. Motion to add terminology services as a 5th track for Paris with evaluation afterwards on managability made by Paul; Josh seconds. No objections or abstentions.
- Resource proposals:
- ClinicalAssessment resource is blank. David will write it up to present it to them tomorrow.
- Contract: Lloyd - Is it common practice for systems to put their consent directives into the same repository that is used for other things? Paul – operatory system and admission system may have a file of patients but we don’t create a separate resource due to reuse. Lloyd asks what is the granularity with which systems typically manipulate this stuff? If systems typically draw hard boundaries between two different concepts then we should have two different resources. Discussion over differing ways to come at the issue. Paul: the difference between a contract and a consent directive is financial fields. Lloyd wants everyone to look at Contract this week and determine if these should be combined together. We’ll look at it quickly next week and make a determination.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International