2016-01-06 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|HL7 SGB Minutes
Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371,
Time: 11:00 AM Eastern
|x||Mary Kay McDaniel|
|no quorum definition|
- Agenda review
- Discussion Topics
- Concern raised two weeks ago at TSC regarding proposal from FGB for review and approval process for product family-related projects. TSC recommended that the document come to SGB for review before TSC decision was made.
- Paul: what is the difference between this and the PSS?
- Lorraine: This was in response to the ArB project that came through that was not run past FMG.
- Paul: Mentions creation of FHIR Path without PSS. This material is in reaction to a project to do mapping using RDF using FHIR as an example. That project had a PSS, but FHIR felt that FHIR Path didn't require a PSS.
- Lorraine: that notional solution has not gone through a committee of any kind. Paul: it was discussed in a committee but no vote was taken. *Lorraine: This statement was put together long before this situation arose. You're talking about when a PSS needs to occur; this issue is what happens to the PSS after it is created.
- Austin: Originally PSSes were a device for communication that work was being done. Paul: When we do that, we surface the work and also look at the completeness or appropriateness of what's being proposed, and whether or not all the right groups are involved so there isn't scope creep into another group or groups can be involved who might not have known about it.
- Ken: And if it's work outside of the WG, they have the appropriate cosponsors engaged. Helps us see that it's being managed within the product family, and if it's outside of the product family we review it and validate that it makes sense.
- Lorraine: this came up on FGB this week and Calvin spoke to it extensively. Highlighted the communication aspects. Pushback we got was that some members of the group were asking for clarification on what granularity needed to be added to a PSS. Ken: That's been an ongoing debate within HL7. One issue that we realized was that there was work going on to determine if a project was a project - developed PSS-lite. *Lorraine: PSS-lite did come up as an option. Lloyd said that he checked with Dave Hamill on what granularity we needed for PSSes; Ken inserts the opinion that Dave is the wrong resource in this situation. Lorraine agrees and states she is just relating the conversation. Continues that from the PMO process point of view, the granularity is up to the committees and the governance group. TSC/FGB/SGB need to indicate what the policies are for how granular the PSSes need to be from a governance point of view. FHIR-I's argument is that it goes along with their PSS that they're working on FHIR core stuff. What is the trigger to push a PSS forward? Ken: There are people who push back quite strongly; i.e., Woody feels V3 publication doesn't need any further refinement. Process and intent is always the same. In those instances it makes sense. But in this situation, we're creating new functionality, and updating tools. Need to have broad input and review on those types of projects. Lorraine: Their M&C states that they'll consult EST in those situations.
- Paul: going back to V3, what's the level of granularity there? Lorraine: we make a PSS when we're going to update a new topic.
- Paul: we need to clarify when PSSes need to occur; who the PSSes should be announced to; and when approval is required. This last bullet that product families should be reviewing NIBs; the action would be that we send items to the group.
- Ken: I don't' think that represents a real necessary step; SMEs within the group would be driving that and eventually WGs will be absorbed into product family committees as we reorganize how we do work.
- Austin: TSC is only getting to approve projects when they're halfway through the ballot cycle is indicating that we've got too many approval steps already. We don't want to insert more. TSC along with SGB needs to rethink the entire approval process going forward.
- Lorraine: when we're in Orlando, we should look at this alongside the management group guidelines outlined in the BAM.
- Austin: when it comes to NIBs in the context of product families - I wonder if we need to rethink the entire NIB process. Maybe the WG petitions their management group for permission to take their content to ballot.
- Lorraine: FMG was surprised by an IG that went to ballot. May want to lay out the scope in a plan with a timeline for short and long term.
- Austin: the PLA is supposed to be dealing with these issues. Paul: PLA will be coming forward with new advisements in January.
- Discussion over whether NIBs would be review or approval.
- Calvin joins and describes his understanding of the document.
- Ken: One concern is that it's not clearly understood what is a product family and what isn't.
- Austin: that's part of the process of the formalization that needs to occur.
- Calvin suggests that we need to do a test drive of the process.
- Paul: in terms of the work that we need to do in SGB - will add to Sunday SGB agenda at WGM. In terms of a response to FGB; we will wait to communicate a response until after the WGM and will let them know in the meantime that we're working on it. TSC/FGB should address the FHIR Path issue that a notion was implemented as a requirement without review or coordination.
- Lorraine: SGB should perhaps attempt to meet with FGB in Orlando. FGB meets Q0 on Mondays at the WGMs. Lorraine and Calvin will investigate with FGB.
- Ken: you should have joint meetings until further notice
- Paul: we've got our meetings straightened out for SGB - meetings in Orlando will be Q3 on Sunday and Q1 and 2 on Friday.
- Adjourned at 12:56 Eastern time.
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved