2018-07-11 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: 2018-07-11
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


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

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-06-27_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      • Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
    • Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
    • Get current versions of both RDAM PSSes to review
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
      • Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • RDAM followup
    • Degree of documentation for STU vs. Normative resources
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in
    • CIMI MG followup
    • Precepts We Need to Develop
  • Parking Lot
    • Mapping coordination
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM – add to 2018-06-27 agenda
    • Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR – add to 2018-06-27 agenda
      • Add link to Confluence page from ARB page
    • 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?
    • 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

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-06-27_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Austin/Lorraine
    • VOTE: Tony abstains. Remaining in favor. (8-0-1)
  • Action Items
    • Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      • Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
        • Carry forward
    • Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
      • Carry forward
    • Get current versions of both RDAM PSSes to review
      • Complete
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
      • Carry forward
  • Discussion Topics
    • RDAM followup
      • Lorraine displays. Investigative Project now has TSC as primary sponsor and SGB as cosponsor. Does the mapping between the FHIM and CIMI. Confusion over which project – investigative or technical – is doing the mapping. The technical project maps CIMI-FHIM data to EHR-S FM functions, and was reviewed by the Infrastructure SD last night. Austin notes that he had a discussion with Stan and he is fine with the mapping, but is not on board with the methodology pieces. Lorraine suggests that our recommendation might be that we don’t move forward with the investigative project. Austin: Was this approach deemed necessary at all by the Infrastructure SD? Paul notes that there was not the strife he expected on the call. Austin states the real question is: Is there a desire from the methodology space in HL7 to have an overarching methodology that puts modeling at the top? Wayne suggests we do a poll. Having an ubermodel driving all development doesn’t seem like something everyone wants. Discussion over what group should issue the survey. Paul suggests putting it forth to the cochairs of the methodology WGs, referencing the document and asking if there is a desire for a model-driven approach where a reference domain analysis model sits at the top with everything else driving from it.
        • ACTION: Paul/Austin will draft the survey
    • Degree of documentation for STU vs. Normative resources
      • Carry forward
    • SGB Communication Plan
      • Carry forward
    • Large architectures coming in
      • When it affects cross-organizational methodology, product family methodology groups need to have a review and say – this is a potential precept.
    • CIMI MG followup
      • Carry forward. Paul hasn’t yet attended a CIMI call but plans to.
    • Continuous maintenance in FHIR – what does that mean in terms of the processes?
    • Organizational SWOT
      • Are there concerns from this group that could be added to the SWOT? If you have any issues, please send them to Austin/Lorraine/Paul.
    • Ewout has been wondering about updates we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions. We don’t have a habit of porting such compatible changes to the older stuff. Have we managed to solve this problem across any of our standards? Paul notes it could be handled with extensions. Ewout: But sometimes in the narrative, stuff is unclear or wrong but we corrected that in previous versions. Austin: If you do an errata, you can patch old releases. Needs a formal process. Errata would answer it if you’re fixing a problem; if you’re adding functionality, that’s a different thing. The current numbering system doesn’t lend itself well to that.
      • ACTION: Add to parking lot
  • Adjourned at 11:05 AM Eastern


Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved