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

2016-04-13 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2016-04-13
Time: 11:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

Regrets Calvin Beebe
Regrets Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
x Ken McCaslin
Regrets Rik Smithies
x Brian Pech

no quorum definition



  • Agenda
    • Add update from Tony from ARB needs
    • Update from PLA
    • Update from HTA
  • Call time
    • Internationalization call conflicts. Paul asks if 10 am Eastern would work? Group generally can do 10:00 am Eastern.
  • Updates
    • ARB
      • Working on definition of substantive change. The other issue that ARB was tackling is what is the role of the product director; now being worked on by PLA. Paul will attend next week's ARB call at 4 pm Eastern on Tuesday and PLA at 2 pm Eastern on Wednesday; Paul has been invited to HTA 5:00 pm Eastern on Wednesday. Paul encourages others to attend as able to join in these important conversations. The notion of change and what is substantive and whether it's conjoined with the type of ballot rests in the domain of ARB; SGB's interest is seeing that its application across families is consistent.
      • Is substantive change a normative term only, or is there the concept of substantive change at other ballot levels? Austin: ballot level is relevant as far as what you have to do to deal with it/actions you have to take when you make a substantive change. On STU track the rules are you don't have to worry about reballoting like you do in normative. Concept is independent of ballot. Ken states ARB should make decision and send recommendations to TSC on how it should be done.
      • Paul: given the diversity of the people here, it would be great if members of SGB could attend ARB to weigh in.
  • DMP
    • Decision that quorum should be chair plus 4. Wayne is a voting member.
    • Continue next week
  • Healthcare Privacy and Security by Design Implementation Guide
    • Discussion over the fact that SGB won't be "approving" PSSs. Sent for review to make sure that the intent of the project aligned with SGB's intent for the project. Was discussed at the Friday SGB meeting in Orlando. SGB agreed that CBCC should keep working on it in Orlando. Austin thinks they are trying to get this enforced through SGB and we should state that SGB is not endorsing whether or not it is a should or shall in terms of other groups.
      • MOTION by Austin that we endorse the project moving forward with the understanding that there is no decision on whether or not it will be mandated once it is published. Second by Ken.
      • VOTE will occur via e-vote. Three days of discussion; if no substantive issues, then the vote.
      • Anne to send out to e-vote with the PSS
  • SWOT - next week
  • Timing for next call - 10 am Eastern on 2016-04-20
  • SGB guidance on IG conformance statements
    • Should IGs be normative? Austin: Rules are product family specific with overarching consistency applied; SGB could determine what things must be included. Wayne: Historically is that people can't always tell what is an explicit conformance statement. Need to know what is a rule and what is a suggestion. Austin: CDA has conformance identifiers that are traceable. Paul: Bigger issue is "what is an implementation guide?" Austin: yes, some are prose and some are applying constraints to a standard. Paul: would be supportive of the creation of normative IGs. Austin: we do have some today. Need to define a small cluster of documents for different purposes.
    • ACTION: add further discussion for next week
    • Next week: SWOT, DMP, status of V2, PSS

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved