This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2017-03-22 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2017-03-22
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

Calvin Beebe
Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
Regrets Austin Kreisler
Regrets Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Quorum: Chair + 4


  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-15 SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Anne to send to substantive change definition 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
    • 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.
    • Anne to reply to Richard re: Privacy Cookbook 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.
    • Calvin will make updates to ballot level transition and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to TSC call.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Issue from FHIR - Ballot level: Draft or STU
    • Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
    • CDA MG Mission and Charter Review and Approval
    • SGB provider role recruitment - look at 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


  • Agenda review
  • No quorum reached
    • Issue from FHIR - Ballot level: Draft or STU
      • Paul introduces topic. Group reviews FHIR maturity model. Group reviews resources in FHIR ballot. In 1.6, AppointmentRequest was balloted STU, for example. Others are still at Draft. Next time, we'll have some that are Normative. In 1.6 there are 31 draft resources. Last week it came up that Questionnaire, for example, is still at FMM0 despite having been tested at Connectathons. The difference is balloting as draft vs. balloting STU. Tony: MessageHeader should've been 3. FMM has little to do with ballot except for that binary cut. Rik counters that the difference between comment and STU is bigger than the difference between FMM 0 and 1. Paul: The issue is that 25 of the resources that were balloted at 0 (draft) are not published at draft - they're published as STU. They went either from 0 to 1, and in one case it went from 0 to 5 (CodeSystem). This could reflect the original ballot level being a mistake, but it becomes an ANSI issue when it goes to Normative (FMM 5+WG/FMG agreement that the material is ready). Our rules have been that the level at which you ballot is the level at which you publish. Out of the 25, some were incorrectly balloted at draft. We don't seem to have an objective ruling from WGs saying it's ready for STU. Then there are those where people felt that, through reconciliation, the resource became STU through additions/corrections. This is not our process. FMM 1 and above STU; 0 is draft for comment. FMM 5 is a pre-requisite to be published as Normative.
      • A few ways for TSC to deal with it: They could say "oh well, things happen." Concern with that is it will cause difficulty down the road because we're not adhering to our policies. Paul and Grahame discussed; Grahame states they are aware of the policies but it was a mistake. We need to put the process in place so it doesn't happen again so we don't run into eventual trouble with ANSI. Grahame states it is not a governance issue, but rather a management issue that they were not clear what was draft or not with unclear documentation. Another issue is that to qualify FMM5, it needs to have been published in two formal publication release cycles at FMM 1+ and that has not been adhered to.
      • Problem is lack of appropriate checks and balances to minimize the occurrence of these problems. Publication was approved in advance of publication, which is also problematic. If that hadn't happened, we could have addressed this without it being a public event.
      • Discussion on how the decision to move up resources - there was no FMG vote on those. It was as result of work done in ballot reconciliation, which is not normal process. You can't do an STU ballot, reconcile it, and then move up to Normative in publishing.
      • The next steps are a TSC decision. Part of the issue is that if ANSI comes in and looks at this, there are no documented committee decisions to point to. There isn't a problem with FMM levels changing; the issue is the ballot level at which you're publishing. One option is that we could ballot the mis-assigned resources in September in an STU ballot. Each resource has an assigned FMM level and ballot level, separately specified, a feature which was created last week. Maturity levels should be corrected to say that if you're at 0, you may not ballot above comment. At 1-4, you may not ballot above STU. If you're 5, you may ballot at Normative.
      • Need to put checks and balances in that we could eventually remove. We must protect them and us. Two approaches: TSC says it's fine this time, or TSC says no, roll it back, and you'll have to go through a ballot process to move things from draft to STU. Or they could say because the step was missed of committee approval to go from draft to STU, then the committees have to approve that and we need the dates. In this situation, the decisions were made by individuals as opposed to responsible committees.
        • ACTION: Paul to take issue to TSC on Monday
  • Adjourned at 11:05 am Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved