2017-03-08 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: 2016-03-08
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
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
no quorum definition

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-01 SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • SGB to send definition of Substantive Change to methodology groups for review
      • ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
    • 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.
    • Send request for FMG lunch time to discuss mixed content in ballot
      • Discuss issue with Grahame beforehand
    • Anne to go back and ask for clarification on what SUR means in the Privacy Cookbook and have them define in document before we complete further assessment.
      • Response from Richard Grow: "Good question. SUR (Specification Under Review) is a term used by W3C, but I can’t find a definition from them. One of the negative voters on the ballot recommended that I use “SUR,” and I obliged. However, I would have no objection to replacing “SUR” with the term that HL7 uses for standards or specifications under development."
  • Discussion Topics
    • Final Decisions on transitions in ballot level
    • SGB provider role recruitment
      • Review of position descriptions for FMG/FGB
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Mixed ballot content issue
  • 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
    • Paul adds topic of a standard being at a certain ballot level when it's standing on the shoulders of something at a lower ballot level.
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-01 SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Rik
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • SGB to send definition of Substantive Change to methodology groups for review
      • Not complete. Discussion over what groups it should be sent to. Decision to send to FTSD first.
      • ACTION: Anne to send to FTSD cochairs for review and comment on the definition to see if it covers what it should in respect to their domains.
      • ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
        • Add for next week
    • Austin will go through the Project Services' "Introducing New Processes" document and report back
      • Main emphasis for SGB is the last section which is how the actual new process is implemented - it is either encouraged or mandated. Decision currently resides only with TSC; in the future, it would also be routed to the SGB to incorporate it as a precept for product families if it is relevant to standards development. The current document needs to be updated to reflect.
        • MOTION: Anne to add to TSC agenda - SGB recommends to TSC that process changes which affect standards development should go to SGB for consideration and recommendation back to TSC. May wish to update the informative document "HL7 Policy for Introducing New Processes Release 1." - Austin/Lorraine
        • VOTE: All in favor
    • 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.
      • ACTION: Add as discussion topic for next week
    • Send request for FMG lunch time to discuss mixed content in ballot
      • Discuss issue with Grahame beforehand
        • ACTION: Add as action item for 2017-03-29
    • Anne to go back and ask for clarification on what SUR means in the Privacy Cookbook and have them define in document before we complete further assessment.
      • Response from Richard Grow: "Good question. SUR (Specification Under Review) is a term used by W3C, but I can’t find a definition from them. One of the negative voters on the ballot recommended that I use “SUR,” and I obliged. However, I would have no objection to replacing “SUR” with the term that HL7 uses for standards or specifications under development."
        • Consider next time whether or not we agree with that phrase. Need to go and see whether or not we agree that those policies or recommendations should apply to specifications under development.
        • ACTION: Anne to reply to Richard and ask where you've used SUR, do you intend for that to mean specification under review or specification under development, because SGB sees those as two different activities.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Final Decisions on transitions in ballot level
      • Last question we were focusing on was when can different levels be downgraded to comment only. Recommended between the NIB phase and the final content, the WG could ask the TSC to approve the change. After final content, the cochairs could request to pull it. Lorraine: We should differentiate between the NIB and the ballot announcement. Calvin will update. Cannot downgrade to STU. Last scenario was in the window between ballot content co-chair review and ballot opening. Two questions: Do you allow different parts of a single package to be at different levels, and do you create one ballot to cover all of those pieces or separate ballot for separate pieces in the same package? Lorraine: It comes down to what you've declared to the community. Need to withdraw ballot or a downgrade to comment after final content review stage. Discussion if it should be allowed to downgrade at that stage. Can you withdraw after ballot open? Paul: CTO should weigh investment made by balloters and reason for downgrade/pull. Lorraine: After the ballot is opened, requests to withdraw can be considered under special circumstances by the CTO and TSC. To downgrade or pull in the period between final content and ballot opening, WG or product director requests, and the TSC Chair or CTO reviews/approves. If TSC chair or CTO is unavailable, pulling it is the only option. The timeframe before final content: committee can request that it be downgraded and take it through the TSC. NIB submitted will be changed to ballot announcement on the diagram as that is the appropriate guidepost.
      • ACTION: Calvin will make updates and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to Monday's TSC call.
    • SGB provider role recruitment
      • Review of position descriptions for FMG/FGB
        • Add for next week
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
      • Add for next week
    • Mixed ballot content issue
      • Add for next week
  • 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