This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-06-28 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2017-06-28 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 | ||
| x | Serafina Versagge | ||
| x | Martin Whitaker | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-06-21_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Determine which members expire at the end of 2017
- Paul to find principles document and write precept on mixed ballot content
- Anne to add review of MG template and publication request topic to TSC agenda
- Complete
- Anne to add formalizing methodology groups to PLA agenda
- Complete; added to today's PLA agenda
- Tony to find vitality assessment slide deck
- Available here
- Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
- Discussion Topics
- Nominations for SGB
- Review Grahme's document regarding variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- State Machine Alignment, continued
- Revisit our current precepts and add who our precepts apply to and how they are to be implemented
- Review PIC document on balloting best practices
- Parking Lot
- Review Publishing M&C updates regarding dual roles
- Write/post precept on vitality assessment
- Next steps on Substantivity (from ARB)
- How do we deal with making sure that WGs involve those whose content domain they’re touching? (CIMI and Pharmacy and Lab models)
- Review Mission and Charter
- PSS approval process: managing unresponsive parties - propose new precept to TSC
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- 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
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
- Agenda items for San Diego
- Re-appointments to SGB
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Brian Pech here to ask about boilerplate. Decision to send it to management groups once it's approved.
- Approve Minutes of 2017-06-21_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Austin/Rik
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action Items
- Determine which members expire at the end of 2017
- Austin, Russ, Paul need to be renewed.
- Paul to find principles document and write precept on mixed ballot content
- Add to next week
- Anne to add review of MG template and publication request topic to TSC agenda
- Complete
- Anne to add formalizing methodology groups to PLA agenda
- Complete; added to today's PLA agenda
- Tony to find vitality assessment slide deck
- Available here
- Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
- Add for next week
- Determine which members expire at the end of 2017
- Discussion Topics
- Nominations for SGB
- There are four candidates: Thompson Kuhn, Amnon Shabo, Sandy Stuart, Dale Nelson. Discussion over whether or not we include consultants. Discussion over whether we should cast the net wider and re-send the message/extend the date. Paul states that maybe we should forward the request to the wider membership. Anne suggests a reminder to the cochair list with a date extension. Discussion over whether that's needed since we have a good candidate (and possibly two). Decision to table for two weeks and then regroup once we know more about Kuhn. Austin suggests that Amnon and Dale's requests be kept on file for when other positions open up.
- ACTION: Austin to follow up with Thom.
- There are four candidates: Thompson Kuhn, Amnon Shabo, Sandy Stuart, Dale Nelson. Discussion over whether or not we include consultants. Discussion over whether we should cast the net wider and re-send the message/extend the date. Paul states that maybe we should forward the request to the wider membership. Anne suggests a reminder to the cochair list with a date extension. Discussion over whether that's needed since we have a good candidate (and possibly two). Decision to table for two weeks and then regroup once we know more about Kuhn. Austin suggests that Amnon and Dale's requests be kept on file for when other positions open up.
- Review Grahme's document regarding variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- Group reviews. Note that Questionnaire and CodeSystem were not the only resources in question. Group notes that 23 resources were affected. Communication process seems to be a main issue. Lorraine: Other pieces aren't addressed here, such as how we decided we were going to handle it (was decided by a small group without FGB input). What is our goal here? Paul: We need to decided if this provides sufficient explanation and if we agree with how it was handled (if it was supportable and complete). Lorraine: Whether we agree or not, it's water under the bridge. Paul: Yes, but are there lessons to be learned to take forward? If it's incomplete and wrong, can we say it's water under the bridge? There are resources in 3 that have never been balloted before. That doesn't apply to the logic here. Wayne: The question is did they explain what happened with the rationale, and do they have a good solution moving forward? Paul: ANSI judges us on how we follow our own rules. FMM levels are documented within the specification. Austin: They only audit us on the essential requirements for normative ballots. Discussion over comments on FMM0. Paul: We shouldn't apply blanket logic to everything. If we have a ballot that is part normative and part draft, that's not in the GOM either. Version 3 has done mixed content before. Lorraine: One question missing from lessons learned: when a problem occurs, who should be involved in the resolution? It was primarily the product director and a few others in this case because it was considered a management issue, but the governance body should be aware. Wayne: Agreed, and with better procedures they won't have to make these judgment calls. Paul: The other action is that we need to follow our processes. Resources were put into the ballot in August at a particular level; things were published as STU that were not approved by the committee to be STU. We very much want to make sure that doesn't occur again in the future. Still concerned that this write-up only covers two resources, and it's broader than that.
- Add further discussion to next call
- Nominations for SGB
- Adjourned at 11:00 am Eastern
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
