2017-05-08 FGB WGM Agenda

HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: Marsella		Date: 2017-05-08 Time: 8:00 AM
Facilitator:		Note taker(s): Anne W.

Quorum = Chair plus 2				yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO		Members
	Woody Beeler	x	Lorraine Constable	x	Grahame Grieve		David Hay
x	Dave Shaver	x	Ewout Kramer		Cecil Lynch (ArB)	x	Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
x	Wayne Kubick	x	Calvin Beebe	.
observers/guests
		x	Anne W., scribe
		x	Paul Knapp
x	Austin Kreisler
x	Josh Mandel

Agenda

• Roll call -
• Agenda Review
• Approve minutes of 2017-04-10 FGB concall
• Action Item review:
  • Reach out to Grahame on the goals, mission and charter and get his thoughts on what product director does, as well as look at frequency of calls. Then we can look at responsibilities distribution.
• Discussion Topics
  • Call schedule
  • Goals of group
  • Product Priorities
• FMG update -
• Methodology update-
• Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
• Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.

Minutes

• Roll call -
• Agenda Review
  • Added Product priorities
• Approve minutes of 2017-04-10 FGB concall
  • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Lloyd
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action Item review:
  • Reach out to Grahame on the goals, mission and charter and get his thoughts on what product director does, as well as look at frequency of calls. Then we can look at responsibilities distribution.
    • Grahame: Wayne is writing up description for product director. 3 main categories of responsibilities: communication/marketing; administration of the product releases; providing leadership and direction around where FHIR is going as a product – it’s overall shape and scope and how the work of the committees relates to the product that is FHIR. No authority over the specification. Lorraine: This discussion was related to the goals because we were trying to separate the role of product director from FGB as FGB pre-dates the role. Dave: We need to differentiate between FHIR governance and standards governance; are we duplicating effort? Lorraine: Dealing with publication and versioning also overlaps with publication director. Grahame: I can choose to delegate that, but even if that happens I would be accountable. Lorraine: Our understanding is that Lynn is accountable for that. Paul: The publication side is delegated down to publishing, not something that the PD would delegate over to publishing. Grahame: The PD doesn’t have authority to publish the spec, so there is shared responsibility there from the TSC. Publication and product are closely linked. Discussion over how it would work in other families. Wayne: the job description doesn’t explicitly mention publishing – it mentions securing approval for publication.
      • Grahame: Goals/mission/charter – SGB is officially responsible for ensuring that governance is carried out properly. The existence of SGB changed the goals/mission/charter of FGB. Each product has different governance and issues around the lifecycle, the way the community works, the way it’s published, etc. Lorraine: If I look at what we’ve talked about over the last two cycles, our content has disappeared into either FHIR Foundation or Grahame’s role. When issues came up around publication, the governance issues around that never got discussed here. Grahame: That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t. Lack of regular meetings causes things to be dealt with elsewhere. Paul: What governance is particular to FHIR? Do we have concrete instances where the application of governance to FHIR is unique? Grahame: The different products are in different stages of life cycle. Some issues are the same, but some differ. There’s a strong tradition in FHIR of public forum and communication that doesn’t exist in other standards. Pressures are different and different issues arise. Transparency is at a different level. Paul: I’m seeing that there are different communication tools and channels, but the precepts are the same. Grahame: My view is that FGB is the bridge between management group and SGB. Grahame expresses that SGB doesn’t lend the sharp focus on FHIR; is more general. Paul: Architecturally it becomes a discussion of whether or not it makes sense to make subcommittees under SGB for the product families. Wayne: Does it mean subcommittees or liaisons? Lorraine: FGB is essentially a task force under SGB right now. Paul: How do we arrange ourselves to make sure that individual family concerns are heard? We set ourselves up this way because we felt that governance should be common across the organization. As Lorraine noted, FGB was doing a lot of things that moved to the PD role. Have there been things in the last quarter that FGB has addressed that are FHIR-specific? Lorraine: I would broaden that question. Have there been things that we should’ve been talking about? In the last cycle we haven’t done very much. Wayne: We didn’t have a list of things to do either. There should be a defined purpose. Lorraine: When issues came up, they had to be dealt outside of the group because we weren’t meeting. Wayne: I don’t think we want separate governance boards for CDA, etc. Perhaps there could be an ad hoc group that is consulted when necessary. We need to reduce these bodies as much as possible. Paul: In Baltimore we had a very FHIR-specific issue that went to SGB. Is there a barrier to access to timeliness or responsiveness that wouldn’t be there with a single body? Wayne: Perhaps you have a group of governance task force representatives from product families who are at the ready. Grahame: FGB maintains the product precepts. All product families should have specific product precepts. Austin: SGB has a role in establishing a set of precepts for product families that are specialized to the product family. Lorraine: We have a challenge when we bring new stuff in. Paul: Can we, between now and September, actively monitor the issues that come up and how they’re being addressed, looking for the stuff that’s FHIR-specific? Wayne: Should be regular governance report-backs to SGB anyway. Grahame: The things that are left are less product specific than in the beginning. We can collect data and re-evaluate.
• Lorraine notes that we haven’t had an update on FHIR registry. Wayne reports that we expect a document for distribution anytime but we’ve been promised one for some time. Will be posted to wiki for review.
• Lorraine: It was noted yesterday that scope was a substantive change in normative ballots. Austin: We had a good conversation with Lloyd about that at TSC last night. Lloyd: At completion of the ballot, we would get a sense from the WGs responsible for candidate normative content as to whether substantive change would be necessary or likely. We would then yank those items from candidate normative as well as dependencies; if that left us with a pool of artifacts that were still eligible for normative and a reasonable package, we would apply non-substantive changes and go back to the community with a new ballot asking for an up/down on pushing out that reduced package to normative.
• Discussion Topics
  • Call schedule
    • Decision to keep it every other week for 30 minutes instead of an hour, beginning at 4:30 pm Eastern time.
    • FMG will be Q0 on Monday next meeting
    • Next call 2017-05-22
• Add product priorities to Thursday agenda

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2017-05-22 FGB concall

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.