This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20150916 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

logistics

Teleconferences are held on Tuesday at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern Schedules may be found at HL7.org Conference Call Center


Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

  1. Join the meeting:
  2. If you cant use voip then capture the PIN from the screen for the above action, then
  • Weekly conference call.
  • For 24/7 customer service please call (844) 844-1322.

Agenda

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
  4. Management
    1. Mission and Charter Review - Due in fall WGM
    2. Decision Making Procedures review - due in fall WGM
  5. Governance
  6. Methodology (60 minutes)
    1. BAM Review:
      1. Refer to BAM recon for concall
    2. 8 - Input was provided. Â "Pending Input from Submitter" is not a final resolution
      1. Item 5 xl line 8
      2. Vote: A-C No disposition required. (comment lacks an understanding of the purpose. Confused business resources with standards implementation resources)
    3. 12 - Referred and tracked isn't a final disposition
      1. Item 9 xl line 12
      2. Vote A-Q
    4. 22 - This isn't a final disposition
      1. Neg-Mi Needs ARB review
        1. Motion to approve disposition on item 19 "20150916 - Document table cleaned up to show correct responsibilities"
    5. 23 - I agree that many groups can propose precepts, but only Governance can determine what precepts are in force. Authorship involves creation
      1. "***Precepts are authored by governance, but can be authored by any group. Enforced by Governance Group"
      2. A-Q asked and answered
    6. 25 - no disposition. I'd expect documentation to be added to the spec
      1. Motion to change disposition to Persuasive with mod; change comment to "Text will be added to document"
      2. A-Q asked and answered
    7. 26 - intention isn't clear from wording in the specification (and it's not clear how plans from different management/methodology groups could meaningfully conflict - an example would help)
      1. Neg-Mi Perhaps should change Adjudicating Plans to Adjudicating plan conflicts. or (by implication: the only way you have plans is if they are different, otherwise you have plan and no adjudication is required)
        1. Motion to change disposition to Persuasive with Mod; change comment to "Adjudicating Plans to Adjudicating plan conflicts" and update document
    8. 28 - will wording be updated?
      1. Neg-Mi New wording provided.
        1. Motion to add "document will be updated" to the existing disposition comment.
    9. 29 - Not sure that these examples are concrete or constitute measurable goals
      1. Neg-Mj These aren't examples, these are guidelines.
        1. ?????
    10. 35 - The FGB does have responsibility for coordinating with external groups within the scope of the product line. Examples include Argonaut, managing issues from ONC, IHE, DICOM around FHIR, etc. Product-specific knowledge is required for these discussions. ORC and JIC aren't appropriate for all of these sorts of things. Need to reflect this role for Governance
      1. A-Q ORC, JIC, HSI, HTA and perhaps others have these responsibilities on behalf of HL7. Relations to ONC etc. are managed by USRSC. Variances for efficacy should be periodically reviewed. External relations should be committee not personal matters.
        1. Motion change disposition to Persuasive with mod; change disposition comment to "ORC, JIC, HSI, HTA and perhaps others have these responsibilities on behalf of HL7. Relations to ONC etc. are managed by USRSC. Variances for efficacy should be periodically reviewed." and update document.
    11. 37 - Disagree with loosening this to MAY in the case of FHIR and think that, in general, it should be a SHALL for all product families.
      1. Neg-Mi - Committee made decision. Line projects would be an example of what MAY not need family approval for a project to refer to existing family approved content - a Line management committee could so approve.
        1. Motion To revisit previous decision
        2. Motion to change disposition to ???, change disposition comment to ???, and update the document.
    12. 38 - need disposition
      1. A-S "All ballot requests SHALL be approved by the Management Board and submitted to the TSC for final 432 approval". Maybe "All ballot requests SHALL be submitted for approval by the Management Board and submitted to the TSC for final approval."
        1. MotionTo revisit the previous decision.
        2. Motionto change disposition comment to ???, and update the document.
    13. 39 - This doesn't address the comment. The TSC can't direct that work cease in a volunteer organization.
      1. Neg-Mj Does address comment, stated 'Remove the indicated text {sic}' (And yes, the TSC can direct that any work cease to be HL7 work.)
      2. ??? Dont understand the objection here.
    14. 41 - Don't understand the disposition
      1. A-Q Disposition says Question Answered. The disposition comment "Disagree- Methodology group SHOULD create examples" is the answer.
        1. Motion to revisit the previous decision.
        2. Motion to change the disposition to ??? and the disposition comment to ???, and update the document.
    15. 44 - Not sure it's true that all specifications will have distinct conceptual, logical and physical models.
      1. Neg-Mj Ballot item addressed. (All implementable specifications have them, some fail to document.)
        1. ???
    16. 50 - The issue is that this is a balloted specification that is documenting a whole lot of things that should not be locked down in a balloted specification The wording does not suggest that the described processes are examples of how things should be done but instead imply that they're how they shall be done. If you want to have an informative document as a companion to the balloted document, that's fine, but the content that is subject to (and locked by) ballot should be limited to relationships between groups and overall responsibilities
      1. This document could have been 6-7 pages long. Agreed but most people don't like that small a font.
    17. Neg-Mj Ballot item addressed. Document purpose misunderstood.
      1. F1. Not mentioned: Mover/Seconder and votes missing from recon spreadsheet.
        1. OOPS! Tony will research and update.
  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
. Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Hufnagel, Steve ?????
. Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Knapp, Paul Pknapp Consulting
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
. Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
. Guests
. Mead, Charlie Vidal Group, Paris,France
. Hyland, Mario AEGIS
. McDaniel, Mary Kay Cognosante
.
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20150916_arb_minutes&oldid=104247"