2017-03-01 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: 2017-03-01
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
x Paul Knapp
Regrets Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Brian Pech


Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-02-15 SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • 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
    • Austin and Calvin will look at ANSI requirements and Essential Requirements and come up with a draft for an additional type of ballot comment disposition. Tentative schedule for 3/15. Anne to invite Karen.
    • Lorraine will bring up minutes location topic on TSC exec call
    • 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
    • Wayne to explore issue of CIMI having their own governance/whether or not they are an actual WG
  • Discussion Topics
    • Privacy Cookbook document
      • Wayne's email comments for review:
        • Anne will display
    • Transitions in ballot level - final decisions
    • SGB provider role recruitment:
      • Review of position descriptions for FMG/FGB
  • 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 2017-02-15 SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Calvin
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Paul thinks we should look at definition substantive change in terms of FHIR
    • Does our definition cover sufficiently in terms of what FHIR is doing? For example, changing a search parameter on a resource; part of the specification which defines an optional element which may be used by a software system. Lorraine states the definition is not restrained by content models. Product families may have their own examples of how it applies. Paul agrees it is covered after discussion.
    • How do we move forward? SGB should communicate to the methodology groups for the families to review the definition and then confirm that it covers the necessary aspects of substantive change within their family. They could propose family-specific examples. Tony has an extensive guide for V3. Need to figure out how to get it referenced in essential requirements/GOM/other places. PIC should look at the documents in their purview to determine where it's referenced. Project scope is still waiting on cosponsor/other approvals. Anne checking with Dave to see who has approved.
      • ACTION: SGB to send definition to methodology groups for review
      • ACTION: ARB to follow up with PSS approvals
  • Action Items
    • 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
      • Add for next week
    • Austin and Calvin will look at ANSI requirements and Essential Requirements and come up with a draft for an additional type of ballot comment disposition. Tentative schedule for 3/15. Anne to invite Karen.
      • Add for next week
    • Lorraine will bring up minutes location topic on TSC exec call
      • Complete. An ONC project developed an SDC profile that was balloted; ballot review has been going on in OO calls. Minutes have not been readily available. Paul wrote up a note that went to Wayne/Ken to outline the issue; WG's are required to have minutes on their sites that are readily available and these minutes were voice recordings - an unapproved medium. It is a TSC policy to enforce. Ken's assessment is that voice recordings are not sufficient. Has been conveyed to project participants. Lorraine notes that they presented the proposed disposition to OO and had it minuted there so the requirements have now been met.
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
      • ACTION: Anne to add to next week's agenda and link to description from FHIR wiki
    • Schedule meeting between SGB and FMG in Madrid to discuss mixed content in ballot
      • ACTION: Discuss issue with Grahame
      • ACTION: Send request for time at FMG lunch meeting
      • ACTION: Add further discussion to next week's call
  • Discussion Topics
    • Privacy Cookbook document
      • Wayne's email comments for review:
        • Anne will display
        • Group reviews. Making it mandatory to use the process is a problem because most of our WGs aren't at the appropriate stage. Mandate shouldn't be in body of document - it's a policy decision. Two questions: Do we make sure the document itself doesn't attempt to define policy? Does SGB want to take the WG recommendations of making it a mandatory task? If we want to roll it out, we should do a pilot. Discussion over how this applies to standard in different levels of development. Discussion over term "SUR" (specifications under review). Wayne notes that term is not defined in the document.
        • Discussion over removing the word "should" and replacing with could. Calvin notes should implies a best practice. Discussion regarding whether this is applied at implementation or earlier? Document is attempting to apply it earlier. Lorraine notes this is very useful but bringing it into standards development process is too early.
        • ACTION: Anne to go back and ask for clarification on what SUR means and have them define in document before we complete further assessment.
    • Transitions in ballot level - final decisions
    • SGB provider role recruitment:
      • Review of position descriptions for FMG/FGB
  • 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

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved