This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-09-19 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2018-09-19 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 | |||
| Paul Knapp | |||
| Ewout Kramer | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| x | Rik Smithies | ||
| x | Sandy Stuart | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-09-05_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
- Calvin to draft plan for FHIR re: comment vs. ballot process. 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.
- Calvin to also 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.
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- 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?
- Mapping coordination
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Lorraine chairing
- Add RDAM review and what went out to methodology groups
- Approve Minutes of 2018-09-05_SGB_Conference_Call
- Accepted via general consent
- 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
- 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
- Carry forward
- Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
- Carry forward
- Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
- Went out about two weeks ago. There was one response from Lloyd stating that he was not in favor of the idea. No response back from anyone else. Lorraine notes that project 1413, the mapping piece, was rejected by TSC in terms of content and clarity. CIMI will look at recasting it. TSC should also look at rejecting the methodology project.
- MOTION that the SGB recommends to TSC that the RDAM methodology proposal be rejected: Austin/Thom
- VOTE: All in favor
- Went out about two weeks ago. There was one response from Lloyd stating that he was not in favor of the idea. No response back from anyone else. Lorraine notes that project 1413, the mapping piece, was rejected by TSC in terms of content and clarity. CIMI will look at recasting it. TSC should also look at rejecting the methodology project.
- Calvin to draft plan for FHIR re: comment vs. ballot process. 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.
- Calvin to also 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.
- Reviewed Calvin’s draft document. Reviewed ANSI’s language around periodic and continuous maintenance. Most of what we’ve done has been periodic, except for the RIM. For continuous, we need to have a documented program for periodic publication of revisions, with a clear statement of intent to consider requests for change.NO portion of the standard shall be excluded from the revision process. It falls on us to establish the process. Need to document a program for continuous maintenance.
- Lorraine: With the RIM, we don’t really ballot it anymore. WE take updates and changes and do harmonization. Would be stop balloting FHIR and submit change requests? We get broader feedback and consensus when we go through a ballot. Wayne: I think it would be a mistake not to ballot FHIR. Group agrees that we should keep it as a balloted process. Calvin: We should think about risks that we need to manage through this process. Management pieces still reside with TSC. Defining the continuous maintenance program, for example, would be more of a TSC function. Precepts around the high priority risks are an SGB task. Lorraine: What’s the main benefit of moving to continuous maintenance? Wayne: It’s putting updates on a regular schedule. The messaging to the external world is important. Calvin: The continuous has a defined timeline. Austin: We’re going to have to engage the FMG to determine the boundaries of what we’re talking about. Lorraine:
- Draft Precept: A standard must clearly define the scope of the material that is in continuous vs. periodic maintenance.
- ACTION: Anne to add to draft precepts
- Step three is a TSC item. TSC doesn’t want a plethora of consensus processes. Discussion over level of board involvement in setting policy around this. Perhaps SGB should help the board by putting together some possible policies to consider. There is tension between keeping FHIR open and agile and following standard procedures. May want to consider how we engage the product family, the Board, the TSC to get the benefit of their thinking. Should frame some questions we’d like them to answer. Austin notes this may be a component of the board’s assignment to the TSC to develop a streamlined, agile portfolio of standards.
- Need to develop questions for the board to clarify policy.
- What is the meaning of the word agile and streamlined in the context of the original board motion
- Membership value of balloting vs. open comment collection strategies
- Membership value/benefits in general (which member benefits are attracting members, are there opportunities for new member benefits, what benefits are critical to standards development that SGB can craft precepts for.)
- ACTION: Austin to craft slides
- ACTION: Anne to send out Calvin’s document
- Calvin to also 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.
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- RDAM review/methodology group survey
- 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
- Carry forward all topics
- Adjourned at 11:03 am Eastern
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® Internationa
