2017-03-29 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: 2016-03-29
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
x Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-15 SGB_Conference_Call
  • Review minutes from 2017-03-22_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
    • PSS approval process: managing unresponsive cosponsors
    • CDA MG Mission and Charter Review and Approval
    • Issue from FHIR - Ballot level: Draft or STU
    • Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
    • Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
    • 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

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-15 SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Calvin
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Review notes from 2017-03-22_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Austin/Rik
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • 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.
      • Responses from Grahame and Lloyd.
        • Grahame: "Any substantive change shall necessitate a subsequent normative ballot of the same content - if it's already normative, that is."
          • Group agrees that if it's a normative ballot, that applies. Any substantive change of a normative ballot shall necessitate a subsequent normative ballot of the content. Need to separate the notion from the process. Need a heading "for normative balloting" before the second sentence. Wayne: The GOM states specifically that the issue of substantive change shall not be applicable to STU.
        • Lloyd: I thought the CTO had the authority to waive re-balloting in the face of substantive change in certain situations? The substantive change definition should reflect "any change in the required or permitted behavior of conformant systems". This would actually encompass changes around shared instances and circumstances for sending, but it also covers the behavior of receivers and situations where senders may need to execute certain behavior (e.g. logging) above and beyond mere transmission of an instance. Even v2 does set some expectations around receiver behavior (e.g. what types of responses can/must be made to certain inbound instances) and v3 and FHIR both get considerably more involved in defining system behavior.
          • Group discusses CTO waiver notion - from the John Quinn days. Lorraine: Do we need to call out all of these situations in which the CTO has the power to waive? Wayne: We should have a documented appeals process. Discussion over whether the definition is broad enough based on the second part of Lloyd's comment. This is looking at it through the lens of implementation.
            • Updated definition for review:
              • Any change that meets the ANSI substantive change definition (see below) is to be considered an HL7 substantive change. Examples of HL7 substantive changes are: altering the information content of an instance, the circumstances under which it would be sent, or the interpretation of its content. For Normative ballots: Any substantive change shall necessitate a subsequent normative ballot of the content, allowing the consensus group [§02.04.04] to respond, reaffirm, or change their vote due to the substantive change.
            • Action: Anne to add updated definition for review and comment due by 2017-04-18
    • ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
      • In process
    • 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.
        • Add to next week
    • 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.
      • Add to next week
    • Calvin will make updates to ballot level transition and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to TSC call.
      • Add to next week
  • Discussion Topics
    • Consider cosponsoring PSS from ARB regarding substantive change
      • Group reviews updated document/timelines. Looking for SGB, PIC, MnM, and Publishing to cosponsor. Paul wonders if we should have InM and Vocab. Austin: Perhaps each methodology group should be included. Paul suggests adding CDA, Structured Docs. Austin: Let's put all methodology WGs under interested parties. Lorraine states MnM should go there too. They can increase their role if they want to.
        • MOTION to approve that SGB cosponsor the project: Lorraine/Austin
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • ACTION: Lorraine to send to publishing and PIC
    • PSS approval process: managing unresponsive cosponsors
      • Add to next week
    • CDA MG Mission and Charter Review and Approval
      • Add to next week
    • Issue from FHIR - Ballot level: Draft or STU
      • FHIR publication went out on Monday of last week. A week before that, an issue was raised that items had been entered into ballot at FMM0. FMM0 has been synonymous with draft and FMM1+ has been synonymous with STU. Once we get to normative (FMM5+), it was decided that we need to separate the concept of maturity and ballot level. Publications of pre-release 3 and Release 3, they have an FMM level next to the resource. Now they have listed the FMM level and the ballot level. The ballots have contained mixed content. One issue that came up was some resources went into ballot at 0, but since then they've improved and they published as STU - being published at a different level than they were balloted at. Grahame noticed that there were some resources that he wished were at a higher ballot level because he wanted them to be STU - one requirement to be normative is that you have to have been published twice at STU. 25 resources that balloted at draft and are now STU.
      • Last week we decided we can't sweep it under the carpet, and we would punt it to TSC since no precepts were required. Lorraine: TSC exec talked about it - identified a place where we have a governance rule and a management process. The management process wasn't followed. First step is that, since there's a gap in process, SGB should deal with it and communicate to try to get it corrected.
      • Wayne: Grahame stated that the governance was clear and it was a management issue. Paul: Generally, if you send in a document to be balloted at a level, if you discover that you balloted at the wrong level, that's tough. At the time of ballot, maturity level and ballot level were conflated.
      • Wayne told them to document what happened with a rationale for transparency. Lorraine: We have a precept and a policy that you publish at the same ballot level that you balloted at - that is across the organization. We didn't follow that rule in this case. Do we make them adjust the resource levels to match the ballot?
      • Wayne: In terms of deciding what to do moving forward, what's in the best interest of the community and what is the level of risk for the community? Paul notes that this can be material to an ANSI audit if they find we didn't follow our rules. How do we manage this situation such that it doesn't constrain our options in the future?
      • TSC approved publication before review, so this is now a public impact. Group reviews publication levels.
      • Paul states he doesn't doubt that some of these should have been increased before ballot, but many were not approved by the committee to move up.
      • Approaches: 1) we tell them to roll the resources back and reballot them in September; 2) could reballot the resources as an out-of-cycle ballot sooner; 3) Recognizing that some of these were miscategorized, they could go and get the dates of committee approval for it to be above FMM0, take those dates to Wayne to approve publication at the appropriate level. Reviewed published FMM levels on FHIR wiki. As long as we can prove that the committee approved the jump there is justification, and we can declare them as oversights. Discussion over CodeSystem jumping to 5. It's a new resource that has split off from ValueSet and first appeared in May16 connectathon and has substantially increased in size. Wayne: The situation has to be documented with an appeal. Paul: It's a governance problem because TSC isn't accepting it as a management issue. Another issue is changing archived content without a visible log, which has recently been done - need to leave an audit trail.
        • ACTION: Wayne will request that FMG provide documentation to support the requested variance from normal balloting/publishing process
    • Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
      • Add to next week
    • Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
      • Add to next week
    • SGB provider role recruitment - look at descriptions for FMG/FGB
      • Add to 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 to next week
    • Mixed ballot content issue
      • Add to 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