2018-04-25 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: 2018-04-25
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


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

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-04-11_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Lorraine
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-04-18_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Lorraine
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • Paul waiting to hear back from Vocab and PA re: approval of items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      • Paul will send reminder.
      • Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
    • Anne to work on adding links on precepts page to approval minutes for each precept
      • Ongoing
    • Anne to clean up boilerplate product family management group mission & charter using Tony's comments and send back for review
      • Sent to Tony to ensure suggested edits applied appropriately
  • Discussion Topics
    • Handling balloted vs. non-balloted feedback for FHIR
      • Discussion based on email Lloyd send to cochairs yesterday. Of special concern is the first bullet: “Work groups are to consider both balloted and non-ballot-based comments, including non-ballot comments that come in after ballot close. The FMG will likely announce a "Freeze" date after which work groups are no longer expected to look at new tracker items and they will be auto-deferred. No date has been chosen yet, but it will probably be around the beginning of July.”
      • Calvin: What if one of the late comments is substantive – does that force a re-ballot? Yes.
      • This policy removes one of the reasons for being a member.
      • Lorraine: The priority directive is my concern. Austin: If you discover something after ballot close, the WG decides whether or not to consider it. This is something that has always happened, but this is putting rules around it. It’s formalizing something that has been done informally for ages. Paul sees a difference in flavor. Previously I couldn’t put in a bunch of stuff I didn’t put into the ballot after the ballot was closed. Paul notes that the difference here is that these items don’t come from non-members, at least not usually. Lorraine: And in the other example, the WG could choose to include it, and this is not giving a choice. Austin: There is a problem around how to handle non-member comments, but a lot of this is putting in place a formal framework around how to handle post-ballot comments. Paul: The issue is largely one of the impact of whether or not membership is required. Wayne: There is also an issue of frequency of posting comments in FHIR. It happens less frequently in our other standards, while it’s a continuous stream in FHIR. Calvin: Does the decision lie with the product management group to make a decision that negatively affects the finances of the organization? Paul: An opinion after the fact is not a real vote. This undermines the whole construct of balloting. This is a TSC issue and needs to be straightened out. Calvin: Are there rules in the GOM about who can vote? Yes – they can pay to vote or be a member to vote. This is about comments rather than votes. Wayne notes that this puts ANSI audit at risk when this puts our process at risk. Lorraine: We need to forward to TSC for the appropriate response. Need to make sure that we’re happy with how this issue is represented in the JIRA balloting proposal. Paul: If comments were something that you had to be a member or purchase the right to comment, this wouldn’t be an issue.
      • Austin: Need to come up with precept for this. This organization is built on the idea that you become a member to vote. Wayne: We need to make a clear line about what happens during and after the ballot process.
        • ACTION: Austin will send out an email in response to Lloyd’s stating that the proposed process is suspended until the TSC can review it, encouraging people to submit their comments via the ballot process. Austin will attend FMG today to discuss.
      • Paul asks Calvin to think about, from a board perspective, if there is a desire to change the policy. If not, we need to figure out how to operationalize through precepts and rules. Calvin reports there hasn’t been any conversation about the board level on changing balloting process. Paul notes that the ballot that is published should be based upon comments made on the ballot. Anything after that goes to the next version. Comments that are gathered post-ballot close sit on the shelf. This is not compliant with a ballot opening and a ballot closing, which flies in the face of our agreement with ANSI.
        • ACTION: Wayne and Calvin to bring up this issue on the EC call on Monday
  • Schedule: Cancel the 9th. On the 2nd, we’ll look at agenda items and discussing what to relate to cochairs at the Monday dinner.
  • CIMI management group candidates: Missing international perspective. PLA recommended that a second call go out to find more international participants. Austin isn’t sure there is sufficient international participation to warrant a product family. Wayne states we should start it up and fill that gap later. Austin: It’s not just finding people, it’s finding international interest. Lorraine: If we don’t see it as being international, we still have the underlying issues of why we needed a management group in the first place, which is relationships with WGs, etc. If we decide not to have a management group, we still have to deal with all of those issues. Calvin: I agree that we’re going to run into issues if we don’t stand this up. Austin notes that Melva has stepped forward as the international perspective but we need more. Need to invite CIMI reps to the Monday Q0 session.
    • MOTION to send a note to affiliates list and members requesting additional international representation on CIMI-MG: Thom/Lorraine
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • ACTION: Add review of CIMI list to next week’s agenda
  • Carry forward:
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR
    • Review FHIR artifact governance process
    • Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
    • Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
    • Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
    • Review Mission and Charter
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Technical Alignments Between Product Families
    • How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
    • Precept on bringing in large projects
    • Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
    • Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
    • Precepts We Need to Develop
  • Parking Lot
    • BAM guidance on process for product adoption
    • Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Ownership of content
    • What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?

Minutes

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved