2018-09-05 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: 2018-09-05
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


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

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-08-22_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
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
    • Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
  • Discussion Topics
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in:
      • Evaluate PSS process to potentially provide earlier visibility
      • How should a product family-type project be documented and reviewed - is PSS enough?
      • When it affects cross-organizational methodology, PFMGs need to have a review/say - potential precept
    • Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
    • Precepts We Need to Develop
  • 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
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-08-22_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
    • Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
    • Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
    • Anne to check with Grahame regarding time to discuss continuous maintenance in FHIR
      • Anne hasn’t heard back yet; sent a note to Lloyd. Discussed what continuous maintenance looks like in real life. The RIM is under continuous maintenance. The schedule is pre-set and would likely be 18 months for FHIR. Individual topic areas are balloted and we look at what is ready for publication on an annual basis with the RIM. Calvin asks about how FHIR will work when all of FHIR isn’t normative. Wayne: The ER says you publish an update schedule for the standard and you allow anyone to provide feedback. Need to formally state our schedule and the method to provide feedback once we publish R4. Lorraine: need to differentiate between the scope of the normative ballots; for example profiles and extensions on a resource might be STU even though the base resource is normative. Need to manage that relationship. Austin: The difference with FHIR Is the comment process is continuous. Lorraine: Struggling with the difference between comment process and ballot process. Wayne: Feedback can be submitted anytime but there is no obligation to respond. Balloting has strict constraints about addressing comments. The ballot drives the release. Need to create documented process. Paul: A note came from a WG re: a block vote they want to do; that material is in ballot at the moment. Typically WGs wouldn’t make decisions on things when something is out for ballot so you’re not prejudicing the process. Lorraine: The vote was all on profiles and extensions, not on the base resources. Austin: If an artifact or collection of artifacts is under ballot, you’re not supposed to apply additional changes. But for those things that aren’t under ballot, then it’s fine. Need to clarify what part of that block is under ballot and what isn’t. Discussion over whether a precept is needed. Paul: You don’t want to end up where a ballot comment comes in and you decide it’s not persuasive based on a decision you made while the ballot was out. Calvin: The weight of a committee decision on a feedback comment vs. the weight of the committee’s decision on a ballot – are they different? Lorraine: They should be different, but we haven’t treated them that way. Austin: And there’s no rules around that today. Lorraine: The message from FMG is that we treat them the same and I don’t think that’s right. Calvin: It has to do with value of membership and the value of ballot process. Calvin: This is the tension between an open community-based approach and a membership approach. Two compelling risks: one that we lose active participation and the other is we lose active membership. Wayne: The membership still controls what is published. The ballot is what determines what will be published. Paul: It doesn’t – that’s part of the problem when people accept comments and make changes when the ballot is going on. Austin: There are processes so that the ballot pool has the opportunity to prevail. We could simplify the whole thing by suspending tracker items during balloting. But that would affect things that aren’t being balloted as well. Paul: We could suspend it for things that are in ballot. Austin: But the reconciliation process still governs what comes out in the end. Calvin: Maybe we need to create an outline of the continuous process including the activities and their timeframe and boundary conditions, including potential risks. Need to lay out and review beyond our circle. Lorraine notes issue that we need software release management as updates are being made outside of the freeze periods. Comes back to needing to meet with Grahame. The good is being updated almost continuously even as the ballot process is going on.
      • Continuous maintenance strategy applicable to FHIR – what are the steps we need to create this? Wayne notes that we’ll need to modify the essential requirements as well.
        • ACTION: Calvin to draft plan. Identify the risks. Define continuous maintenance. Address review process. Address what activities are allowable/not allowable during the review process. Craft precepts to address high priority risks.
        • ACTION: Calvin to review the organizational issue from the board perspective. How do we position this process in the marketplace? Need to look at business and membership impacts.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in:
      • Evaluate PSS process to potentially provide earlier visibility
      • How should a product family-type project be documented and reviewed - is PSS enough?
      • When it affects cross-organizational methodology, PFMGs need to have a review/say - potential precept
    • Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
    • Precepts We Need to Develop

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved