20150427 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: 2015-mm-dd
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer Cecil Lynch (ArB) x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
Ron Parker . John Quinn x Calvin Beebe
x Paul Knapp x MaryKay McDaniel x Austin Kreisler
x Anne W., scribe Ken McCaslin


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20150420 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Add acting chair issue to Paris agenda
  • Discussion Topics:
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Conformity Assessment


  • Called to order at 4:05. Agenda and minutes accepted; motion by Grahame, second by Lorraine.
  • Action chair issue – will discuss in Paris. Q0 on Monday is the only FGB mtg.
  • Standards Governance Board: Guests Paul, MaryKay and Austin here to discuss. Paul shared Powerpoint regarding history and current plan. Lloyd asks if there would be changes to FMG in terms of it being a closed group? Paul states that no, there would be a mixture of closed and open WGs. No alterations expected for FMG other than it would eventually report to SGB instead of FGB. Went over transition plan, timeline, and plans for FGB transition. Is at-large membership tied to product families? A constituency would be put together that puts together that suite of concerns, but not rigidly tied to families. What is the linkage between FGM and SGB? FMG would report to SGB. Chair of FMG would not be defined necessarily to be a voting member of SGB, although could potentially be one of the members at large. How will family-specific precept development/maintenance be handled? Paul thinks they will be looking heavily for guidance from the respective communities. Grahame: understands the drive for governance, but challenges the notion that it promotes technical consistency. The relationships between TSC and FHIR have demonstrated that the governance needs to be well-connected to the community with awareness of methodologies so it doesn’t make pronouncements that are out of touch with reality for the product. Needs to be visible and well-connected to the community so that when appeals are used, it can adequately judge whether the appeal is justified or not. The governance group needs to be well connected to the community. The SGB mixture contains very little connection to FHIR – it seems flawed in terms of coherence. Paul states that the unified approach allows us to create groups within SGB for extra focus rather than creating separate entities. There is no set end date for FGB in part because we’re not sure how that will work. Grahame is concerned about outcome of this process as far as losing more than we gain. Paul states that the intention is to do a job as well or better across all the families, not to do the job worse. FGB could help PLA and TSC understand what work items are being addressed now that this proposed structure would be insufficient for? Grahame states they’ve been proactive in terms of what kind of interactions they’re going to have with external parties; the future work is what is important. Lloyd states that his fundamental question is how you get good governance decisions on issues that are not common across all product lines.
  • Grahame will summarize his points and will send to Paul and Anne who will forward to PLA. Will discuss further in Paris.

Next Steps

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

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

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