2018-07-18 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: 2018-07-18
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
Regrets Paul Knapp
Ewout Kramer
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Sandy Stuart
Quorum: Chair + 4

Minutes

  • Agenda review
    • Austin: We’ll need to look at UTG and vocabulary governance
      • Austin departs
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-07-11_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Tony
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • 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
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
      • Carry forward
    • Paul/Austin to draft survey regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
      • Carry forward
  • Discussion Topics
    • UTG/Vocabulary governance
      • In C-CDA they’re trying to establish a regular cycle of maintenance for errata and keeping vocabulary sets current. The challenge is that the work that’s been done to date was being published through VSAC infrastructure. But with UTG coming on, there are questions and challenges regarding coordination. Ted brought forth issues at WGM regarding having consistency amongst standards. Takes specialized knowledge to know if you’ve got the right codes. The base resources are fine, but when you get down to specific use cases it can be a challenge. What is the guidance we need to give groups on this? We’ve got a chunk of the organization pushing towards using SOLOR but others use VSAC. Now UTG comes into play and we should be using that, but how does it relate to the publication process with VSAC? Discussion over what that publication process is like. Need specific expertise and a willingness to manage the details. Groups don’t have the expertise and are making mistakes in how they select the value sets. The issue is we need a different mechanisms for how value sets are managed in the organization.
      • What are the issues for us to look at? Organizationally, we need to work out the relationship between UTG and VSAC. Our publication process on IGs could separate the listing of codes to some kind of referenced artifact that is in another framework. May need to do a pilot. The original idea was to separate those things out. SNOMED is moving to a continuous release process. Vocabulary, HTA, and UTG own some of this but it also gets into the realm of how to we manage change post-publication, and should we look at greater separation in the listing of codes from the IGs.
      • Where is UTG sitting between Vocab and HTA? What are the scope boundaries? We need to find that out.
      • Precepts will be required but we need to know the roles and responsibilities between Vocab/HTA/UTG first.
      • Should have Ted join us at an upcoming call to discuss a specific list of questions.
        • ACTION: Add to next week – determine questions for Ted
        • ACTION: Calvin to look for final report that came out of Structured Docs regarding maintaining value sets
        • ACTION: Lorraine/Tony to follow up on RDAM minutes from last steering division call
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR -
      • Need to frame specific questions before discussing in Baltimore
    • Degree of documentation for STU vs. Normative resources
      • ACTION: Anne to dig up context
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in
      • RDAM is not the only one. Do we have thoughts on the right process with which to engage these things when they come forward? Need to lay out some precepts that drive us towards a future where we don’t propagate our current issue like every product family having a different set of datatypes. How do you coordinate across the organization and get consensus in these large projects? Our approval process is very bottom up, and the cross-organizational things don’t get reviewed early in the process. ***Maybe there should be two categories of project: a project that is based and bound within one group, and a project that is hitting multiple product families and committees in a significant way. Perhaps those projects go to a separate review. What kind of a test should we have to determine if projects coming in fit? Sometimes this stuff is way down the line before we even hear about it. There should be a step-wise process so that doesn’t happen. Another challenge is things are often almost done before the PSS comes forward – the PSS is meant to be earlier in the process.
      • Need to look at PSS process to provide earlier visibility, look at how we review and agree to projects that are cross product family, and look at how we review and take on new scope. Need to create some visibility, perhaps using Calvin’s example of a heat map like they use at Mayo to categorize projects. Perhaps generate it from the way we ask questions on the PSS. Could provide guidance to the reviewing bodies for what they should be looking for. What questions should we be asking? If a project has more than 3 other WGs involved – that is one indicator. How big an umbrella is this scope setting up?
        • Potential precept: How specific are our project scope statements?
      • How should a product family type project be documented and reviewed – is a PSS good enough? Or do we need an additional addendum? The fact that the CIMI/FHIM merger seems to have already happened is an issue – too many things happen without considered intent.
      • 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
    • Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
      • Carry forward
  • Cancel next week due to absences
  • Parking Lot
    • Mapping coordination
      • 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
    • Austin: We’ll need to look at UTG and vocabulary governance
      • Austin departs
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-07-11_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Tony
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • 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
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
      • Carry forward
    • Paul/Austin to draft survey regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
      • Carry forward
  • Discussion Topics
    • UTG/Vocabulary governance
      • In C-CDA they’re trying to establish a regular cycle of maintenance for errata and keeping vocabulary sets current. The challenge is that the work that’s been done to date was being published through VSAC infrastructure. But with UTG coming on, there are questions and challenges regarding coordination. Ted brought forth issues at WGM regarding having consistency amongst standards. Takes specialized knowledge to know if you’ve got the right codes. The base resources are fine, but when you get down to specific use cases it can be a challenge. What is the guidance we need to give groups on this? We’ve got a chunk of the organization pushing towards using SOLOR but others use VSAC. Now UTG comes into play and we should be using that, but how does it relate to the publication process with VSAC? Discussion over what that publication process is like. Need specific expertise and a willingness to manage the details. Groups don’t have the expertise and are making mistakes in how they select the value sets. The issue is we need a different mechanisms for how value sets are managed in the organization.
      • What are the issues for us to look at? Organizationally, we need to work out the relationship between UTG and VSAC. Our publication process on IGs could separate the listing of codes to some kind of referenced artifact that is in another framework. May need to do a pilot. The original idea was to separate those things out. SNOMED is moving to a continuous release process. Vocabulary, HTA, and UTG own some of this but it also gets into the realm of how to we manage change post-publication, and should we look at greater separation in the listing of codes from the IGs.
      • Where is UTG sitting between Vocab and HTA? What are the scope boundaries? We need to find that out.
      • Precepts will be required but we need to know the roles and responsibilities between Vocab/HTA/UTG first.
      • Should have Ted join us at an upcoming call to discuss a specific list of questions.
        • ACTION: Add to next week – determine questions for Ted
        • ACTION: Calvin to look for final report that came out of Structured Docs regarding maintaining value sets
        • ACTION: Lorraine/Tony to follow up on RDAM minutes from last steering division call
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR -
      • Need to frame specific questions before discussing in Baltimore
    • Degree of documentation for STU vs. Normative resources
      • ACTION: Anne to dig up context
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in
      • RDAM is not the only one. Do we have thoughts on the right process with which to engage these things when they come forward? Need to lay out some precepts that drive us towards a future where we don’t propagate our current issue like every product family having a different set of datatypes. How do you coordinate across the organization and get consensus in these large projects? Our approval process is very bottom up, and the cross-organizational things don’t get reviewed early in the process. ***Maybe there should be two categories of project: a project that is based and bound within one group, and a project that is hitting multiple product families and committees in a significant way. Perhaps those projects go to a separate review. What kind of a test should we have to determine if projects coming in fit? Sometimes this stuff is way down the line before we even hear about it. There should be a step-wise process so that doesn’t happen. Another challenge is things are often almost done before the PSS comes forward – the PSS is meant to be earlier in the process.
      • Need to look at PSS process to provide earlier visibility, look at how we review and agree to projects that are cross product family, and look at how we review and take on new scope. Need to create some visibility, perhaps using Calvin’s example of a heat map like they use at Mayo to categorize projects. Perhaps generate it from the way we ask questions on the PSS. Could provide guidance to the reviewing bodies for what they should be looking for. What questions should we be asking? If a project has more than 3 other WGs involved – that is one indicator. How big an umbrella is this scope setting up?
        • Potential precept: How specific are our project scope statements?
      • How should a product family type project be documented and reviewed – is a PSS good enough? Or do we need an additional addendum? The fact that the CIMI/FHIM merger seems to have already happened is an issue – too many things happen without considered intent.
      • 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
    • Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
      • Carry forward
  • Cancel next week due to absences

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved