2017-02-01 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637

Date: 2017-02-01
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Austin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


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


no quorum definition

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-01-15_SGB_WGM_Agenda
  • Review Minutes of 2017-01-20_SGB_WGM_Agenda
  • Action Items
    • Recruit candidate for provider role on SGB
    • Add topic of separation of concerns relating to holding chair position across methodology, management, and governance groups to FHIR agenda
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Schedule meeting between SGB and FMG in Madrid
    • Paul to forward information on HL7 essential requirements regarding reballoting when there is substantive change to normative content to FMG
    • Anne to add ANSI’s definition of substantive change to the substantive change definition on SGB wiki for reference
    • Anne to add SGB Annual Review of FGB to 2017-02-20 (or future) FGB agenda; Paul and Calvin to attend from SGB. Lorraine and Wayne to socialize it on 2017-02-06 call.
    • Anne to add issue of having a precept around testing our software to TSC exec call
    • Wayne to explore issue of CIMI having their own governance/whether or not they are an actual WG
  • Discussion Topics
    • Introducing New Processes
  • Parking Lot
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ownership of content
    • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-01-15_SGB_WGM_Agenda
  • Review Minutes of 2017-01-20_SGB_WGM_Agenda
    • MOTION to approve both sets: Paul/Wayne
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Action Items
    • Recruit candidate for provider role on SGB
      • Austin had a conversation with Tom Kuhn with the American Academy of Physicians; he is very active in a number of WGs. He is interested in participating on SGB. We should put together a set of qualifications we're looking for and disseminate to let people know. Paul agrees that Tom is a good candidate but also agrees we should look to have several candidates. Wayne/co-chairs would be the one to recommend candidate to SGB for approval. Also need to communicate to TSC.
        • ACTION: Anne to look up position descriptions written for FMG/FGB on cochair list
        • ACTION: Anne to add to next week's agenda - review of position descriptions and timing
    • Add topic of separation of concerns relating to holding chair position across methodology, management, and governance groups to FHIR agenda
      • Paul states this doesn't need to be on FHIR agenda. We should have guidance along the lines that we should not have the same leadership on all three of those functions to promote separation of concerns. Membership and participation is fine but not leadership. Discussion over whether it matters if the person wears two of the three hats. Wayne notes there aren't any other governance boards other than FGB that are separate from SGB. Austin states that, for example, he is a cochair of SGB, and likely shouldn't be a cochair of another management or methodology group. Part of the issue is that some groups like Structured Docs are performing governance, management, and methodology. Potential precept is that, you can be a co-chair of one governance, management, or methodology group unless there is an exception granted. In FGB, the FGB co-chairs are also ex-officio members of management and methodology. But as we stand up increasing numbers of management and methodology groups, there will be too many ex-officio positions if we follow that pattern. Need to look at the definition of that relationship and perhaps have an SGB delegate to those committees. May have missed this issue as we stood up V2 management group.
      • PRECEPT: Where separation of concerns have been implemented in a product family, an individual should not be a cochair of more than one of the governance, management, or methodology groups. Exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis by the TSC?
        • ACTION: Add discussion of precept to TSC agenda
        • ACTION: Add developing official policy to next week's call
  • Discussion Topics
    • Introducing New Processes
      • Came up on Monday's TSC call that there was an informative publication request from CBCC on the HL7 specification privacy impact assessment, otherwise known as the privacy cookbook. Question was whether the TSC was going to encourage or mandate this process. Lorraine: The content was focused on implementation spaces moreso than standards development spaces. Wayne: Isn't a pilot required to introduce a new process? Austin: Project Services has a document on introducing new processes that we were asked to look at in this review. Wayne: We should have a pilot before mandating anything. Austin: Project Services' document requests a review period, not a pilot. Lorraine: We need a process to follow when these things come up. We have to define the process and then look at this instance to see how we want to apply the process. We need to review the CBCC document to gauge impact.
      • ACTION: Lorraine/Wayne will go through the document and report back
      • ACTION: Report back to TSC that we can come back with recommendations as soon as review/analysis is complete
      • ACTION: Austin to review the Introducing New Processes document from Project Services
    • Levels of Standards
      • Issue is when someone wants to change ballot levels. Discussed that we were okay with them doing that before ballot opening but mid-ballot required more discussion. One problem with dropping from Normative to STU is that we've notified ANSI at that point that we're conducting a normative ballot. STU going to informative or comment is different. Need to verify with Karen what the implications are of dropping down a Normative on short notice. A ballot not being conducted is different than having it not pass. Have said they could simply withdraw from the ballot regardless. Calvin: Should come up with a simple map with timing and approval process. Paul: Guessing you can withdraw from the ballot up until the ballot closes. Austin: No, you can withdraw up until the point that the ballot opens. If something is discovered to be wrong with the ballot after it opens, you simply vote negative. You can also do technical corrections to the ballot and notify the ballot pool. Wayne notes that the essential requirements state you can close the ballot if you don't have sufficient quorum. Need to look at differences for Normative dropping to comment or STU; group feels it would be inappropriate to drop to STU, that comment would make more sense. Discussion over what it means when they change before the NIB, since even that may be a scope change. Concern is over reactive change more than intentional change.
      • ACTION: Calvin to put together a state diagram of what changes are allowed for Normative vs. other ballot types
  • Parking Lot
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ownership of content
    • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't
  • Lorraine out next week

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved