20151004 FMG/FGB WGM

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Atlanta 5

Date: 2015-10-04
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Anne
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
x George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay
Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) x Calvin Beebe
John Quinn
FMG Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech


  • Roll Call
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Hot topics and objectives for the week
    • Criteria for DSTU 2.1
    • Commit Strategy for 2.1 vs. 3.0

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • Agenda:
    • Add TSC discussion on dot releases, and timeline for 2.1
  • Hot topics and agendas for the week:
    • Coordinating resource and profile editors – will talk about that in Q4 and bring back on Thursday
    • Formal strategy for communicating timelines and engagement with WGs, etc.
    • Feedback from WGS: talking to them about maturity levels, new resources/profiles for either 2.1 or 3.0, gforge QA processes, timeline for 2.1
    • Need to close out gforge pilot process
    • Managing artifacts for FMM level 4+
    • How do we ensure that everyone’s resources have been through Connectathon?
    • Process formalization for approving use of the FHIR name – Anne to add to tomorrow lunch agenda
      • Request comes in through FMG contact
    • Technical correction for technical representation of resources – need to decide which to correct and why
      • Is there a short quick process we could undertake to review DSTU 2 to sweep up any others for inclusion in that release? Doing multiple TCs reduces confidence. Paul suggests that we reach out to the WGs to alert them that we’ll be doing a TC for things that are broken and that they should forward any issues they find for inclusion.
  • TSC discussion about naming
    • Look at harmonizing the naming that we use
    • Proposal is to name as a major and minor versions with revisions – major.minor.revision (i.e., 2.0.1)
    • Long conversation to have with TSC about when FHIR goes normative
    • Original guidelines implied that when you published a dot release, it didn’t reset the time of the DSTU expiring because it was an unballoted correction. Revised policy will add the WG adding their preference for resetting or not.
  • Do we want to come up with our candidate scope for 2.1 and go to WGs with that, or do we want to solicit info first from the WGs?
  • Reviewed Lloyd’s email describing scope criteria for DSTU 2.1 changes
    • Number 6 on email describes process to potentially allow things to go normative in 3.0. Therefore, we want to get certain things to FMM 5 so they’re ready to do so. Grahame/Paul suggest that it may be too early to do so. Suggestion to make this statement more focused on FMM levels.
    • Number 4: Discussion over substantive vs. significant change and the appropriate timeframe for completing those changes (sooner or later).

Next Steps

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

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International