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

2016-04-27 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

SGB uses VOIP/mic and speakers. Optional dial-in as follows:
United States: +1 (571) 317-3129
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9353
United Kingdom: +44 (0) 330 221 0088

Date: 2016-04-27
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
x Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
no quorum definition



  • Called to order at 10:04 am Eastern
  • Agenda review
    • Made adjustments to the order of the agenda. Added followup to review item from last week.
  • Minutes from 2016-04-20 SGB Conference Call
  • Items for Review
    • FHIR Tooling and Electronic Services Support – 2016 Repository
      • Paul reviews the project. Original PSS was approved by TSC, went to EST for development of RFP. It died at that point. In fall 2014, EST put the project on hold because materials were not forthcoming. A new exercise came out of the payer community from Attachments, CIC, FM, etc. FHIR is getting to a stage where they are looking at strategically investing. Consequently, they want to make sure that their investment is sound, safe, and managed. One element that is important is that there be a FHIR registry. Lorraine: original requirements were broad and not very focused. Paul: Correct. There needs to be FHIR ownership. Need to deal with the governance process as well. FGB is doing the precepts, but SGB should be involved from an active monitoring perspective. Lorraine: there has been demand for a terminology registry as well. Paul: Not proposing that we be a cosponsor. Ken: I think projects like these should happen because they are more granular; this is a child project of FHIR. SGB involvement is appropriate. Not sure we have ever had a definition of groups that have governance over projects. By saying SGB is an interested party would help (SGB already listed). Critical part that we lose when we put projects together is involving the interested parties. Paul: I didn't mean we should have a governance group over the project; we need a physical product that is the registry that people can put things into and search/pull things out of. We need a set of rules as to how we mark the good in terms of its level of review. Will probably be a few different levels; could be a wholly HL7 balloted profile; a US realm balloted profile; a committee-approved thing; or something someone gave us that they wanted in the repository. Lorraine: governance points to be made around ensuring that support and staff management issues are included in the requirements. Paul: Went to EST and Attachments to address this. EST very concerned. Ken: CMS sees FHIR as a critical issue for success but they see this as a high priority gap. Blues and CMS seem to be willing to provide resources to see this succeed, and were looking across the board at all the potential registries. Paul: ONC is also lurking in the shadows on this issue. Hadn't solved the problem of funding the first time this issue was raised. Ken: They think they have funding, but need to have a project to lay it against. Paul: I would like to get clarity on the current lead on that project - it was EST, not a FMG project. Trying to understand why the change. Ken: Why can't it be organic through the socialization of the project? Ken: Needs to have a clear definition and understanding of technical issues. Lorraine: it was a joint project. EST supports the projects but wants someone else to drive them. It was never purely EST. Paul: Can we have two primary sponsors? Ken: When requirements are not provided to a WG that ends up being one of the key success factors in a project, they have to put it on hold, and the primary sponsoring WG gets to see that it's been put on hold and be challenged by that. It's the perfect escalation process that we have in our environment. The right thing happened at the time. Paul: not questioning EST's right to do that, just questioning the mechanics since they weren't the primary sponsor. Problem was that it didn't come from the top down in FMG. Would be happy with FMG and EST as primaries, or an EST-led project. EST's concern is that they aren't left holding the bag. Lorraine: normally EST prefers not to be primary. Paul: it came up in the EST meeting, but they also seemed to feel that FMG wasn't a real WG, and that's why it wasn't able to have a project. That didn't resonate with me. Lorraine: that was the case two years ago but may be different now. And now we have FHIR-I. Paul: if this gets floated out to them, is it appropriate for FMG or FHIR-I the appropriate place? Lorraine: I think it's FHIR-I. Paul: So if FHIR-I led, EST is co, FMG is an interested party with the others. Does this seem like a rational approach? Group agrees. Could end up at TSC Wednesday lunch.
    • ACTION: Paul will send to co-chairs of FHIR-I and get on FMG next week.
  • Update on SAIF IG project:
    • Lorraine reports that after the SGB call last week, they decided to change the scope, drop the SAIF IG project, and make it a Privacy Impact Assessment Cookbook. They did express concern at one point that they didn't have the skill to deal with the SAIF IG aspects.
      • MOTION to rescind our previous endorsement by Austin; second by Ken. Ken asks if there is a message that we're trying to send by withdrawing our approval? Paul: I don't think so. Lorraine: Friendly amendment: the scope has changed enough that we would like to review the new document. Austin: And do they still want our endorsement?
      • MOTION to rescind our previous endorsement. SGB requests review of the revised project scope if CBCC still desires SGB endorsement.
      • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: Anne to follow up with CBCC
      • ACTION: Paul will touch base with them at the WGM to better understand why the change occurred.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Followup on SGB attendance at ARB, PLA, and HTA
      • SGB was at ARB and PLA; HTA did not occur. Will try for future meeting. Lorraine: the task SGB has in common with ARB regarding role of product director is outstanding. Need to invite Grahame.
      • ACTION: Add to SGB WGM agenda for Friday
    • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call) - add for next week
  • Administrivia
    • DMP
      • Reviewed edited document.
      • Discussion over proxy section. Decision to eliminate proxy sections.
        • ACTION: Remove Proxy section and vote on document next week.
        • ACTION: Anne to re-order bulleted letters under each section to start at a)
    • SWOT - add for next week

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved