2016-06-15 SGB Conference Call

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637		Date: 2016-06-15 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

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

Agenda

• Agenda review
• Minutes review of 2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call
• Action Items
  • Paul and Ken to take HTA document and identify risks and issues
  • Anne to pull out TRAC spreadsheet and distribute; all to review
• Discussion Topics
  • Risk assessment
  • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
    • Need to invite Grahame to discuss
  • CDA Product Family Formation
  • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
  • Role of Steering Divisions
  • FHIR Governance Board
  • Balloting standards which are cross-product family

Minutes

• Minutes review of 2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call
  • MOTION by Ken to approve; second by Austin
  • VOTE: all in favor
• Action Items
  • Paul and Ken to take HTA document and identify risks and issues
    • Reviewed Paul's first draft of HTA risks
  • Anne to pull out TRAC spreadsheet and distribute; all to review
    • Complete
• Discussion Topics
  • Risk assessment
    • Three major groups of HTA risks: Standards Development, Standards Publication, and Standards Implementation.
      • Standards Development: Concerns over developers not having access to standards used in the field; that developers infringe on CodeSet-owner IP by making material too accessible; that regional codeset preference or national licensing results in divergent 'required codes' impacting uptake and interoperability.
        • Ken: If we're using an example set of codes, is it possible to represent the concepts, or do we really need the full set? Paul: The concern is in the management of the asking rather than the number of codes. Calvin: Are we saying that a value set that is not the full code system is fair use? Paul: In the situation where someone develops a code set with a license, then any use needs to be paid for.
        • Ken: the real issue is trying to build a governance that helps people understand the difficulty. We need to put some governance around it and say unless you have a right, you should not provide that subset; only provide what is authorized by the organization. Is HTA going to provide the database for what each of the vocabularies are going to provide as examples and authorizations? Paul: We should push out our risks, and then we should be able to specify how those risks can be mitigated; that's what we take back to the HTA. If we develop a standard boilerplate describing use of restricted content, then we can help people understand appropriate use.
        • Discussion over who would manage the test sets. HTA? A committee? General agreement that it should start with HTA. Ken: A broader issue - beyond terminology, we need to use operational information to tell others how the messages are used. Can we put a framework together to manage the discussion and help develop the governance that needs to be done? We want HTA to take the lead on vocabulary. EC may be the place to manage other things like SOUs to support whatever the HTA has come up with.
        • Calvin: This is a set of rules that are different based on the IP we're talking about that may be managed differently. Do we need separate rules for each of the licensed materials that we may have expressed in the standard? Ken: Differences may be at the product line and realm issues.
        • Ken: Need to provide caution that some of the recommended items need a license and you need to obtain permission before you use it. Discussion over a variety of scenarios. Paul updates HTA Risks document as appropriate.
        • Calvin: We've got this document identifying HTA risks. What are the actions we take with these risks? Austin: We need to step back and evaluate these risks, evaluate the likelihood, determine the impact, and then prioritize what we address first. Right now we're just walking through. Calvin: Would next step be to rework it and take it back to HTA for feedback for a consensus of risks? And then prioritize and categorize? Paul: General process would be getting everything we can think of as a risk. Then ask HTA if we've caught the things that are most important.
  • Question came up in Montreal. Is there a thought that this will change? Work in SDs has lessened. What is the function? If we find that a lot of the activities are falling in the roles of product director/families, we may want to consider what that means. Multiple roles of management are occurring. Ken: Do we need to address this in Baltimore or do more things need to evolve before we have the conversation? Calvin: Probably a little of both. We can't answer for sure until more evolution occurs. Brian: Communications gap; not clear how WGs relate to the management groups. No defined path. SD responsible for existence of committees and management groups responsible for the products.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2016-06-22 SGB Conference Call

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved