2018-04-25 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2018-04-25
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio x Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
Grahame Grieve x Austin Kreisler, Sandy Vance, Didi Davis

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
    • MOTION to approve: John/Paul
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Minutes from 2018-04-18_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: John/Paul
    • VOTE: Hans, Paul, and Wayne abstain. Remaining in favor.
  • Action items
    • Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
      • Carry forward
    • Brian to take VerificationResult resource to Security, OO, Pharmacy, and Attachments to gather input on the notion of Verification and what it would mean
      • Carry forward
    • David to create tracker items for the QA that wasn't applied
      • Carry forward
  • Review Items
  • Discussion Topics
    • Balloted vs. non-balloted feedback
      • Austin here to discuss Lloyd’s email regarding policy around reconciliation of ballot comments that are submitted beyond the ballot on Normative content. Austin has requested that this be put on hold pending a conversation at TSC and executive committee. We don’t want to compromise ANSI material. Also questions regarding the value of membership when people can influence things via non-member comments on Normative material. Need to evaluate whether this is appropriate policy. It also extends the ballot period to the end of reconciliation. John: If a comment comes in that is persuasive and would improve the product – that means we wouldn’t improve the product if it didn’t come from a member? Austin: Things that are errata/technical corrections should go forward regardless of the source. That’s why this needs to be more thoroughly discussed. Not enough guidance on the nuances. Hans: Anything that comes in on gforge shouldn’t be counted towards the ballot. Needs to be more clarity on what is process for substantive change that comes in outside the ballot. We need to a hiatus to think this through. John: We should explain the prioritization.
      • Lloyd arrives. He explains that he consulted with Karen and Lynn regarding ANSI rules. They confirmed there is no issue with making changes outside of ballot feedback, so long as substantive changes go back to the ballot pool. Austin notes that the first place these issues go is the TSC. When policy is going out, that should go through the TSC first. Austin reiterates that this will go to TSC and EC on Monday. Lloyd will send out update to the previous email based on Austin’s comments. Lloyd: The primary source of substantive change post-ballot would come from the WGs themselves. Austin: We need that to be clarified. Paul: Having items come up in ballot reconciliation – it’s the comments that come in outside of the ballot.
    • Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
      • Carry forward to WGM
    • Version numbering for IG ballot releases and publications
      • Paul: The issue is the word release. Whatever we’re balloting is always going to be (Name), Release (number). It’s confusing to use the word release in the naming of the good. Lloyd: It’s deeply embedded in FHIR now. Calling it R4 Release 1 would be very problematic. Wayne: We shouldn’t use the word release in the same title in different contexts. There’s also a distinction between a public name and a more comprehensive name that conforms to GOM restraints. Lloyd: We want to engage with implementers and with balloters with a name that is based on our publication process, not based on ANSI ballot cycles. This is 4 but the first time ANSI will see it. Wayne: We just need to resolve it before we published. Paul: Does the official ballot name need to appear on the spec? We can call the spec a business name and inside the spec state what the version includes. Lloyd: The title page of the specification is one point of confusion, and the other place is in balloting. There, as well, we want the name of the ballot that people sign up for to align with what they think of the content as. Paul: The specification is not the ballot, so it will have a different name. We have more latitude in ballot names. Lloyd: The ideal for ballot labeling is just FHIR R4 2018 May. The notion of ballot 1, 2, 3, 4 is confusing to everybody. Paul: We didn’t keep balloting the same thing – we came up with new things and balloted those. Lloyd notes that from the perspective of the implementer, it’s always been the same thing. They don’t care whether it’s STU 1 or 5. Paul: An implementer will know which STU they are implementing. Lloyd states the number of the ballot level shouldn’t be in the name of the ballot, such as Comment Ballot 3.
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • Have between 80-90 so far.
  • Adjourned

Minutes

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

2018-05-02 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International