This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20161207 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2016-12-07 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | John Quinn, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Richard Ettema, Ron Shapiro | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to approve: David/Paul
- VOTE: All in favor
- Minutes from 20161130_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve:
- Action items
- Lloyd to begin draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Lloyd to get M&M to add policy that requires review and acceptance of extensions as sound and safe by the responsible WG for both core and US realm IG extensions into quality criteria for IGs
- David to reach out to Clinical Reasoning track and request that they complete the scenarios/ensure the work is complete
- Brian Post to reach out to Resource Subscription track to see if endpoint is being covered and make sure that the resources task is being created and dealt with appropriately. Also will ask them to complete the scenarios.
- Brian Post to reach out to Unscheduled Care to clarify the specific restful ____ (Anne couldn't hear the word)
- Review Items
- Discussion Topics
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to approve: David/Paul
- VOTE: all in favor
- Minutes from 20161130_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: Paul/John
- VOTE: all in favor
- Action items
- Lloyd to begin draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Add for next week
- Lloyd to get M&M to add policy that requires review and acceptance of extensions as sound and safe by the responsible WG for both core and US realm IG extensions into quality criteria for IGs
- Add for next week
- David to reach out to Clinical Reasoning track and request that they complete the scenarios/ensure the work is complete
- Complete
- Brian Post to reach out to Resource Subscription track to see if endpoint is being covered and make sure that the resources task is being created and dealt with appropriately. Also will ask them to complete the scenarios.
- Add for next week
- Brian Post to reach out to Unscheduled Care to clarify the specific restful ____ (Anne couldn't hear the word)
- Remove
- David will draft notice to promote people staying on after Connectathon to participate more deeply
- Add for next week
- Lloyd to begin draft of PSS regarding the proposed new balloting process
- Review Items
- None for this week
- Discussion Topics
- One week summary: There are a few project like argonaut, FHIR core, GAO, US Lab, etc. that have outstanding items that haven't been touched. Do we know who is responsible? Discussion over what FHIR core means in this context. The problem is that it's been marked specific to project as a WG. There are items that need to be figured out and we also need to kick an issue to TSC to advise. If we have projects that come in and want to ballot materials that aren't part of the FHIR core spec, could we not create them as WG equivalents, or is that the intention of project? If something is not part of core spec, like an IG, there is presumed to be a project associated that is responsible for making decisions around what happens to content with the IG - not necessarily on WG calls. Grahame: having project as a WG, even if you renamed it, it seems like a conflation of issues. Lloyd: we could change the rule and say you must have a project or a WG but not both. Lloyd to add clarification and change project to IG project. Paul asks if someone can attend TSC to describe how the system currently handles this. OO does have oversight authority over these ONC projects, but do all dispositions have to be voted on within that group, or can they happen elsewhere and have liaison reporting? Question is are we comfortable with the notion that responsibility for triage and vote resolution can happen outside of a WG meeting. Paul: Can anyone attend that meeting? Lloyd: Yes. QI Core is dealt with on regular CDS/CQI calls; some are dealt with separately from WG meetings. Argonaut is separate; not sure about US Lab.
- ACTION: Anne to add to TSC schedule - Implementation Guide Ballot Resolution
- SOA hasn't done anything for 90 days. John says FHIR-I has already handled their duplicates - should be assigned to FHIR-I. Discussion over weekly tracker report emails and assignments to those within the group. Two reports go out on a regular basis; one is weekly summary and the other is tracker issues that have validation problems. Several report they haven't received the most recent email.
- ACTION: Anne forwarded email with attachments to David that isn't making it through to the listserves
- Discussion over stale items. Who should we rattle about things not being addressed? How do we get them to pay attention?
- ACTION: Grahame to address FHIR tests servers stale items
- ACTION: David to talk to Devices
- ACTION: John will reach out to Imaging and CBCC
- ACTION: Hans or Paul to reach out to US Realm
- ACTION: Lloyd to reach out to Brett re: Argonaut
- ACTION: Lloyd will reach out to GAO and QI Core
- ACTION: Brian Pech to reach out to US Lab/OO
- CBCC has quite a bit of stuff outstanding, as well as FHIR-I and FM. CQI has a lot they haven't applied.
- Grahame: Topic for next week: When IG is approved for publishing, we need to agree on canonical URL
- ACTION: Add for next week's agenda
- Need to look at progress WGs are making in terms of filling out the spreadsheet describing where they're at with FMM levels
- ACTION: Add to next week's agenda
- One week summary: There are a few project like argonaut, FHIR core, GAO, US Lab, etc. that have outstanding items that haven't been touched. Do we know who is responsible? Discussion over what FHIR core means in this context. The problem is that it's been marked specific to project as a WG. There are items that need to be figured out and we also need to kick an issue to TSC to advise. If we have projects that come in and want to ballot materials that aren't part of the FHIR core spec, could we not create them as WG equivalents, or is that the intention of project? If something is not part of core spec, like an IG, there is presumed to be a project associated that is responsible for making decisions around what happens to content with the IG - not necessarily on WG calls. Grahame: having project as a WG, even if you renamed it, it seems like a conflation of issues. Lloyd: we could change the rule and say you must have a project or a WG but not both. Lloyd to add clarification and change project to IG project. Paul asks if someone can attend TSC to describe how the system currently handles this. OO does have oversight authority over these ONC projects, but do all dispositions have to be voted on within that group, or can they happen elsewhere and have liaison reporting? Question is are we comfortable with the notion that responsibility for triage and vote resolution can happen outside of a WG meeting. Paul: Can anyone attend that meeting? Lloyd: Yes. QI Core is dealt with on regular CDS/CQI calls; some are dealt with separately from WG meetings. Argonaut is separate; not sure about US Lab.
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Richard Ettema reports that he and Ron are meeting weekly re: the patient track
- 50 registered so far
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Adjourned at 5:14 pm Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International
