2017-02-15 SGB Conference Call

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637		Date: 2017-02-15 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

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

Agenda

• Agenda review
  • Lorraine: Add minutes location discussion
• Review Minutes of 2017-02-08 SGB_Conference_Call

• Action Items
  • Anne to look up position descriptions written for FMG/FGB on cochair list
  • Add discussion of separation of concerns precept to TSC agenda
  • Lorraine/Wayne will review the Privacy Cookbook document to gauge impact and report back
  • Austin will go through the Project Services' "Introducing New Processes" document and report back.
• Discussion Topics
  • Transitions in ballot level
  • Additional type of disposition for ballot items
  • Minutes location
  • FMG/FGB position descriptions
• 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
  • Lorraine: Add minutes location discussion
• Review Minutes of 2017-02-08 SGB_Conference_Call
  • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Russ
  • VOTE: Lorraine abstains. Remaining in favor
• Action Items
  • Anne to look up position descriptions written for FMG/FGB on cochair list
    • Complete
  • Add discussion of separation of concerns precept to TSC agenda
    • Complete. Had discussion at TSC. Were comfortable with TSC being the escalation path.
  • Lorraine/Wayne will review the Privacy Cookbook document to gauge impact and report back
    • Add for call in two weeks. Wayne found some things that need to be changed but it is improved over the last version. Wayne's changes could be made without reballoting. Lorraine's changes wouldn't affect content. Document should not imply that it's policy.
      • ACTION: Anne to add Wayne's comments from email to discussion item
  • Austin will go through the Project Services' "Introducing New Processes" document and report back
    • Add for next time
  • Paul to send request to vocab co-chairs for SGB to cosponsor vocabulary governance PSS
    • Complete. No objection from the cochairs.
• Discussion Topics
  • Transitions in ballot level
    • Calvin updated slides. Group reviews slide 4. Open question: During current process, after a NIB is submitted, WGs have until ballot open to decide if they're still going to ballot? Lynn says yes. If WGs want to drop their content to a lower level ballot, are they able to do that prior to ballot open? Lynn: That would require approval by TSC. Wayne: Is there a way to do a fast track vote if time is short? Perhaps TSC Chair and CTO. Would be low risk because it's in the best interest of the ballot community. Discussion over dropping Normative to STU. A normative notification goes to ANSI. Lynn: We notify ANSI when a ballot goes to Normative when the project is submitted, prior to it even going to ballot. If it drops to STU, it doesn't look good for us to initiate a Normative project and then have it wait for a long period of time. Group agrees that it would be unlikely to go to STU - would be more likely to just pull the ballot. Austin states if they make the decision earlier in the process, they should petition the TSC to drop the level via PSS. Austin asks what ramifications it has for Lynn; she states effect on her workflow would be negligible but could affect some aspects of V3 workflow (if after final content deadline) and future FHIR publishing. Austin: Perhaps your option after the final content deadline is to simply pull the ballot.
    • Will discuss on next call to make final decision on where we want to land on this.
  • Additional type of disposition for ballot items
    • Driven by desire to unambiguously indicate that the issue will be considered for the future. Tony: Need to take into account the affect of not persuasive and not related - ANSI looks closely at those and reballots have been undertaken. Outstanding negative vote of not persuasive has to be recirculated. Calvin: How does ANSI look at considered for future use? Tony: It says that things that are voted not related is required to be considered for future release. Discussion over ANSI requirements and how they relate to HL7 essential requirements. Wayne suggests a disposition of Not Actionable or similar.
    • ACTION: Austin and Calvin will look at ANSI requirements and Essential Requirements and come up with a draft. Tentative schedule for 3/15. Anne to invite Karen.

• • Minutes location
    • Minutes with ballot resolution votes - some FHIR ballot resolutions are recorded in video/audio and not on an HL7 platform. If this was normative, it wouldn't be acceptable due to lack of accessibility. Austin notes this is risky behavior. It is accompanied by the disposition in the ballot spreadsheet. Calvin: are A/V recordings sufficient, where are they stored, and are they available for auditing? Wayne: Are these informing the minutes? Lorraine: They're using them as the vote for the ballot dispositions, which makes it substantive. Wayne: There should be a set of HL7 official minutes that includes the link. Austin: Does OO's DMP allow this?
    • ACTION: Lorraine will bring up on TSC exec call
• No call next week

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2017-02-29 SGB Conference Call

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved