2017-08-02 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: 2017-08-02
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Sandy Stuart
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-07-26_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Austin will make edit recommended by TSC regarding voting to the boilerplate M&C template and send on to management groups
    • Paul to find principles document and write precept on mixed ballot content
    • Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
    • Paul to finish detailed list of 23 items for FHIR ballot that were approved by WG to be STUs
    • Anne to do a Doodle poll of FGB/SGB/Lisa Nelson for either the FGB time or the SGB time for the week of the 8/1
    • Anne to add FGB review on first week in August agenda
      • Complete; in discussion topics below
    • Anne to send language back to Freida re: Considered for Future Use ballot disposition as comment from SGB on proposed GOM updated
      • Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • Question from Karen regarding Considered for Future Use ballot disposition
    • FGB vitality review
    • SAIFISM
    • From PLA: Scope transition/abandonment
    • 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
    • Lorraine adds coverage for reviewing VMR material
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-07-26_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Austin/Sandy
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • Austin will make edit recommended by TSC regarding voting to the boilerplate M&C template and send on to management groups
    • Paul to find principles document and write precept on mixed ballot content
      • Add for next week
    • Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
      • Add for next week
    • Paul to finish detailed list of 23 items for FHIR ballot that were approved by WG to be STUs
      • Add for next week
    • Anne to do a Doodle poll of FGB/SGB/Lisa Nelson for either the FGB time or the SGB time for the week of the 8/1
      • Poll located here
      • Discussion over responses to poll. Decision to do it on 2017-08-14 at 4:30 pm during the FGB time.
        • ACTION: Anne to send out calendar invite.
    • Anne to add FGB review on first week in August agenda
      • Complete; in discussion topics below
    • Anne to send language back to Freida re: Considered for Future Use ballot disposition as comment from SGB on proposed GOM updated
      • Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • VMR Reviewers
      • VMR has a number of items in ballot and one item has not been addressed. Group is reviewing to make sure recommendations by original task force have been followed. Logical model document is being looked at by Paul. No one is currently looking at the Templates piece. Austin notes that Kai did that originally; could reach out to Kai to ask if he would do it again. Discussion over who will submit votes; Austin volunteers to submit on behalf of SGB. Thom will also be reviewing them although not necessarily against the requirements.
        • ACTION: Paul to reach out to Kai regarding Templates piece of the VMR items.
        • ACTION: Paul to send original documentation of requirements to Anne to send to ARB and SGB.
    • Austin/Lorraine Reappointments
      • ACTION: Anne to add to TSC agenda and get list from Linda
    • FGB vitality review
      • Are there any issues dealt with this trimester that are FGB-specific? Lorraine: Life cycle governance issue has been on our agenda. Location of FHIR material is an ongoing issue. Paul: The number of items that have been addressed seems to be light; while FHIR topics, they don't seem to be FHIR-specific. Similar issues have occurred with CDA or V3 or RCRIM, etc. Doesn't necessarily require knowledge of FHIR methodology in order to determine the guidance. Calvin: When we're looking at the relationship between these two groups, FGB hasn't come to terms with being sunsetted. Lorraine: Product director and FMG chairs have not come to terms with that certainly. Paul: Is that because of the work they see arriving, or is it independent of that? Calvin: They see value in the structure existing over the management function, but it also isolates them from everything else. Lorraine: Could be more value if more items were brought to them. Paul: The purpose of having a family-specific governance committee is to capture and address family-specific issues which might require a greater knowledge of the family management or methodology in order to properly handle or offload. Lorraine: There was more of that before Grahame was in the PD role. Discussion over why to have both groups in terms of essentialism. Need to have face-to-face in September to ask the questions. Lorraine suggests having Wayne and Grahame discuss before the joint meeting. Paul: Is there a reason or value to not sunsetting it at the end of the year? Austin: We should identify a mechanism whereby one or more of the current leadership of FGB transitions to SGB. Lorraine notes that she and Calvin are here - the representation gap is the link to the product director or other member who has representation on the FHIR Foundation. Do we add a FHIR core person in to SGB so that the voice is represented? Do we consider adding product directors to SGB?
        • ACTION: Add further discussion to next week's call
      • FHIR Foundation: Paul notes that we don't have a purview to make comment regarding the FHIR Foundation. Lorraine: We have purview in terms of monitoring the boundary between HL7 inc. things and FHIR Foundation things. Or is FHIR Foundation an extension of the fabric of HL7? The difficulty of assessing this is that we don't have the knowledge to determine this. Lorraine: FHIR Foundation meetings have pre-empted FGB meetings several times this cycle. Discussion over discrepancies over what belongs on HL7 managed platform vs. FHIR Foundation platform. Original intention was that standards development materials are to be stored on HL7 and implementer materials are FHIR Foundation; the line is currently blurry. Thom notes that these same issues are going to come up with CIMI. Calvin: Wayne will have to be the conduit for these discussions/decisions. Need to understand how the sustainability of the tooling for repositories will be funded. Lorraine: When FHIR wanted to use GIT, we agreed that it was better to be on an HL7-owned GIT. EST is working on how we move things there and access them. Things like the tooling CIMI is developing is a much bigger thing that we then need to own and maintain. Paul: Is this an area SGB should pursue? Should we punt it to TSC? Lorraine: We should be involved In terms of precepts for tooling and platforms that assist in standards development. Paul: Then TSC manages that through the various WGs or back to HQ. Need to refresh education to the WGs. Discussion over dissemination of policies and what to do when we can't currently support things that people want to do. Calvin: Need a precept on use of new tools and how you go about that within our organization. Need to coordinate with Wayne.
    • Question from Karen regarding Considered for Future Use ballot disposition
      • Anne notes that Karen is struggling to view not related and considered for future use differently. Group gives following examples:
      • If the ballot is on a pharmacy specification, and the comment which comes in is regarding a clinical genomics line item, that’s not related.
      • V2 balloted a section of red-marked change areas. When someone made a comment on the other part of the scope that was not being balloted, that was not related.
      • If the comment is related to the material under ballot and that issue can’t be dealt with right now, that would be considered for future use.
      • A comment on balloted material that is a scope change that requires profoundly more consideration than you have time or bandwidth for, the WG can use considered for future use to defer without rejecting; it allows it to have consideration merit. Not saying yes, not saying no – saying not right now.
      • Not related can mean “this belongs to someone else,” this is out of scope of consideration, or out of scope in context of the balloted material.
      • In the past, because there was no considered for future use for a negative, people ended up classifying things as not related, but it wasn’t correct.
  • Adjourned at 11:05 AM Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved