2016 ARB Orlando WGM

Monday January 11, 2016 Q2 Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20160111 Time: 11:00am U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
R	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Hufnagel, Steve	?????
.	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
R	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
.	Guests
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

Methodology

• BAM
  • Neg Majors

1. Lloyd comment Line 17 item 14: What's the purpose of introducing yet more facilitator roles? (And why include classes in the diagram if you're not going to explain what they're for . . .)
   1. ARB Disposition Comment:1 The roles in this model are sterotypes that MAY be used in the derived models. The intent is not to introduce new formalized roles, but rather to describe the business. 2: Will provide explanation of the classed in the diagram.
   2. Lloyds response:But how is inclusion of roles that have never existed with no definition - just a name - helpful in "describing the business"? I don't see explanations of classes such as BAM_GovernanceFacilitator anywhere in the new PDF
   3. Lloyds Response(updated) There needs to be something here that also says that these roles and classes are draft or proposed or something. We can't approve them as official when all we have is names and a picture with no definitions.
   4. 20160111- ARB BAM_governanceFacilitator is an abstract class in the UML profile. This is not necessarily an "official" position.
      1. Motion Persuasive with mod: Will define the items in the UML profile. This is a "to-be" architecture. (Lorraine/Andy S).
      2. Vote (3-0-0)
2. Lloyds Comment Line 21 Item 18: Start the document here and move the preceding stuff to appendices. The content here is much more meaningful/relevant/understandable. And the preceding content seems unnecessary to interpret this section.
3. Disposition Comment:Move scope up after purpose.
   1. Lloyds Response(updated)It hasn't been moved
   2. 20160111 -
   3. Motion to find not persuasive moving this is a major task, and serves no valid purpose.(Lorraine/Andy S)
   4. Vote(3-0-00
4. Lloyd comment Line 44 item 41:This listing of stages seems to enforce a waterfall approach to product design. FHIR may have done pieces of all of these, but many were in parallel, not necessarily in order and some were skipped entirely. The BAM should not enforce a waterfall approach to product design. Agile and iterative methodologies should be a current objective with the ability to adapt to other methodologies that may come along over time.
   1. ARB Disposition: Persuasive with mod Ths document is not meant to enforce a waterfall design - merely to state the stages that are necessary. - Remove the numbering: Mature standards would be expected to exhibit evidence of all stages.
   2. Lloyds Comment #2: Not sure it's true that all specifications will have distinct conceptual, logical and physical models. It's unlikely that FHIR will produce distinct artifacts for these levels. V2 never has and it's hard to imagine that being introduced at this stage.
   3. Lloyds Comment (Updated) "Can we change ""Mature standards would be expected to exhibit evidence of all stages"" to ""Mature standards would be expected to exhibit evidence of all stages, though multiple stages may co-exist in a single artifact"".Want it to be clear that there's no expectation for distinct conceptual, logical and physical modeling for all product lines, though I'm comfortable that the artifacts produced need to show that each of those levels of analysis have taken place."
      1. 20160111 - Motion Not Persuasive because the activities described in the stages make no statement about the number of artifacts that result from a stage, nor should any be implied.(Lorraine/Andy S)
      2. Vote (3-0-0)
5. Lloyd comment 46 Item 43: Gut reaction to this is "as far from agile as it's possible to get". We *want* new products in HL7 and want our ground to be as fertile as possible for people with new ideas. If you show this to a newcomer, they'll turn around and head for the door. The objective here should be "what is the bare minimum process we can put in place that ensures that ANSI requirements are met and that WGs are able to be productive. Anything with more than 5 stakeholders is too much. And note that most of these steps were skipped when we introduced FHIR. If they'd been in place, FHIR might never have come to be. HL7 needs to be "the place you go to get healthcare standards done" not "the place to fill out more paperwork and jump through more hoops than you do in a typical government beaurocracy".
   1. ARB Disposition: Not persuasive See 42.
   2. Lloyds Comment 1: Don't see how 42 (comment # or spreadsheet row) has anything to do with the comment. How does this BAM support agile development and ensure that processes are the bare minimum necessary to allow quality development?
   3. Lloyds Comment(added) "Can we add ""Note that this represents the process for formally introducing a new product family. In many cases, work on the content and nature of the product family will exist long before approval is sought or needed. This process is invoked once a candidate product family is sufficiently well defined and understood to be ""official"".""It doesn't need to be exactly that, but it needs to be clear that it's pefectly legitimate to show up at HL7 with an idea and work within one or more workgroups to bring that idea to initial fruition without having to jump through a bunch of hoops."
      1. 20160111- Motion Not Persuasive: The whole purpose of this is to introduce to the community the idea of a product to prevent re-inventing the wheel and ensuring communication with effected parties. The artifacts defined have no described size or complexity. (Lorraine/Andy S)
      2. Vote (3-0-0)

• • Aq-S

1. Lloyds Comment Line 25, Item 22:Where do these come from? How is their relevance to a given product line determined?
   1. Arb Disposition:Considered - Question Answered Tracker 8093 The goals come from the Strategic goals - from any stakeholder. Relevance comes from Leadership.20150510_arb_f-f_ParisWGM
   2. Lloyds Comment Don't you think it would be good to include that in the document?
   3. Lloyds Commend(Updated)Can we add "as established by the TSC and/or Board of Directors"?
      1. 20160111 Motion to find Question Answered: It is not the job in this document to define who defines the orgnizational goals, how, when, or why.(Andy S/Andy B)
      2. Vote (3-0-0)

• • BAM modeling Product Versioning and Retirement ***

1. What are we trying to define?
   1. BAM: Activities supporting product change management including versioning and retirement of obsolete products.
   2. Probably define difference between publishing, versioning, and releasing.
      1. Version is a technical numbering scheme used internally.

• • RDF FHIR to RIM Report***
    • Project team will produce report explaining the rationale for the abandonment of the project.

ARB Orlando Thursday January 14, 2016 Q4

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20160114 Time: 1:45pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
.	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Hufnagel, Steve	?????
X	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
X	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
R	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
X	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
.	Guests
.	Solomon, Harry	GE Healthcare
.	Nelson, Dale	Accenture
.	Aassve, Oyvind	Norway
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

Governance

1. Review of PSS with externally developed content:
   1. Documents
      1. PSS IIWG Endorsement of DICOM PS3.20
      2. Proposed approach
      3. External document referenced in PSS
   2. Motion to approve (Lorraine/ Andy S.)
   3. Project is in association with DICOM.
   4. Meets HL7 requirements for external content.
   5. Vote (4-0-1)

Methodology

1. Vote to approve publishing of the BAM
   1. Motion to publish the BAM (Lorraine/ Andy S.)
   2. Vote (5-0-0)

Management

1. Conference call Schedule
   1. WGM Monday Q2, Thursday Q3.
   2. Teleconferences: 3:00PM Eastern Wednesdays
2. Adjournment
   1. Adjourned at 3:15PM Eastern

Tony Julian (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2016 (EST)