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

20150928 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: 2015-09-28
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
x Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Cecil Lynch (ArB) x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
John Quinn . Calvin Beebe .
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
Anne W., scribe


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20150817 FGB concall
  • Discussion items:
    • Resolution of Reconciliation of FHIR time and ballot issues (ONC)
    • Issues around the ArB project to map the FHIR spec to RIM
    • Atlanta agenda
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.


  • Woody has returned and will be evaluating his level of participation across the organization in upcoming weeks.
  • Lorraine has been serving as acting chair and will continue to do so currently.
  • Minutes
    • MOTION to approve minutes by Lloyd; second by Woody
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Atlanta Agenda
    • Sunday lunch joint with FMG; Monday Q0; Thursday Q4 joint with FMG
    • SGB: wants to meet at end of Monday Q0 as just a formal meet and greet. Currently membership is Austin Kreisler, Russ Hamm, Calvin Beebe, Lorraine Constable, Paul Knapp, John Quinn, Ken McCaslin. We need another international member and an ArB representative.
    • Topics for FGB breakfast: 1) What our role and relevance is; making a case for our existence after SGB is up and running, 2) Process improvement between resource editing and profile editing (joint session), 3) Governance of FMM 4+ artifacts and making non-backward-compatible changes, 4) Carryover from today's call
  • Resolution of reconciliation of FHIR time and ballot issues for ONC
    • US Realm reviewed the resolutions with ONC. ONC was taking back the material for review. No further discussion has occurred at this point.
    • Anne to forward eLTSS presentation from US Realm to FGB
    • Do we want to have any sort of ongoing liaison contact between ONC and FGB? Or should that always happen through US Realm? Lorraine states Calvin and herself overlap between FGB and US Realm so we do have coverage. Do we want to reach out and have an update from ONC on an upcoming FGB call? Grahame agrees we should have ongoing contact with ONC. Lloyd states we should at least have a broad sense of the projects they'll be bringing through as well as interface on FHIR processes. Cecil will follow up with representatives from Accenture to identify a candidate.
  • ArB issue:
    • Paul describes the ArB project. They were interested in seeing where possible elements could be mapped back to the RIM. Work was going on in RDF and the consideration was to develop a computable language to map artifacts and elements in each of the standards back to the RIM to test for completeness and to provide people with a crosswalk as they moved from one standard to another. Intended as a research exercise as we don't know it is doable. Pharmacy was interested in that work so for pilot purposes it was decided to use a FHIR use case.
    • Direction from TSC was that it is a broader cross-family project that is not altering or creating FHIR material so it didn't need to go through FMG.
    • Lloyd's position is that any project involving FHIR artifacts, whether producing or leveraging, should be coming through FMG. IN this particular case the work overlaps with the strategic direction of what FHIR is intending to do with RIM-based mappings in the FHIR spec. PSS did come to MnM to be a co-sponsor; a number of issues were identified but not resolved so MnM did not sign on to be a co-sponsor. If a PSS has the word FHIR in it somewhere, FMG should be expected to look at it.
    • Lloyd asks if the TSC was aware of the fact that MnM had issues and did not become a co-sponsor. Lorraine states that yes, TSC did know that, and her understanding that ArB did address some of the issues. Paul: the expectation was that someone on the FHIR side or MnM would become co-sponsor on the PSS after the TSC was approved. ArB did send a note to FHIR Infrastructure asking for a response.
    • How as FGB do we want to address this? Lloyd: the sponsorship decision is really up to FHIR-I and MnM. Governance question is what is our expectation for FHIR-related projects in terms of their approval and do we expect that FHIR-related projects should be sent to the FMG as part of the project approval process?
    • We need to define what "FHIR-related" means. Lloyd states that if FHIR appears at all, it needs to be reviewed by FMG. Lorraine states that we'll need to take that position back to TSC.
    • Discussion over how this project relates to methodology.
  • Adjourned at 5:08

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.