2018-10-04 FMG WGM

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Chesapeake B

Date: 2018-10-04
Time: 3:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio . Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve x Guests listed in minutes


  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Discussion Topics
    • Review of the week
    • Date we'll start auto-deferring new proposals


  • Roll Call
    • Guests: Eric Haas, Dennis Patterson, Drew Torres, Kathy Pickering, Tim Mcneil, Alexander Henket, Richard Ettema, Michel Rutten, Reinhard Egelkraut
  • Agenda Check
    • No additions
  • Discussion Topics
    • Date we'll start auto-deferring new proposals
      • Other deadlines: For R4, substantive freeze is 11/1; final content freeze is 11/11. Can make substantive change to other resources up until the Monday between. Any items that get entered starting next Friday will be deferred. Lloyd will announce.
    • Review of the week
      • Paul: Aside from a couple national programs going out using the resources in the next year, nothing notable.
      • Brian Post: All systems normal – no new issues.
      • Brian Pech: James Agnew has joined as a Publishing cochair. With some funding from the ONC he may be able to take some of the publishing burden off of Grahame in the next year or so.
      • John: My WGs are all on STU and are happy. Not much ballot feedback.
        • ACTION: Anne to add review of what content is attracting ballot feedback and what isn’t to upcoming agenda
      • Hans: From an Observation perspective, there was one substantive change that is contributing to the re-ballot. There are going to be many discussions between now and R5. Device is currently listed as an FMM0. Looking at increasing its level for R5. Lloyd notes that 12/2 is the deadline for entry of FMM levels to be complete.
      • Grahame:
        • Quite a number of committees worked hard and efficiently to do ballot reconciliation and R4 finalization. Patient ballot passed, but there is still a need for withdrawals and recirculation. Same for Infrastructure. Conformance and Terminology is going back out to ballot with two changes. Still have a lot of editorial work to do.
        • Evident pain points emerged over this process. It’s important to maintain transparency. Some said that we were encouraging people to not follow correct process; if you hear any such concerns, refer them to Wayne so he can review it with us. Other pain points – revised rules about ballot deadlines.
        • Someone said it was impossible to get anything published anymore due to the new NIB deadline soon to be imposed by the TSC. Paul: the rule is about the PSS, not the NIB.
        • In terms of the IG process, we need to improve documentation. Need to get more people to be able to exercise the machinery, which requires a deep expertise of HTML. Need a stable tool chain. Have entered the point in HL7 where our ability to review content at ballot is a limitation. What can we do to build capacity to do ballot review? This has been elevated to the EC and the board. Developing a product roadmap to R5.
      • Product Management Council met on Wednesday morning Q0. Now have product management groups for V2, CDA, and FHIR. CIMI may be forming soon once they get more international participation. Working on drafting some common quality criteria for publication. Also coordination around notices of intent to ballot where we have products that are balloting multiple artifacts in different product families. Reinforced that TSC supports and will stand behind decisions by product management groups to enforce quality criteria and process. If content comes to us and we don’t feel that it’s ready for ballot based on that criteria, it is within our rights to say it doesn’t go to ballot that cycle. Will need to provide education on that concept. The perspective is it’s okay to put material out for feedback even if it’s not actually robust enough. Hans: Does this apply to for comment ballots? Lloyd: We need to discuss that more. Brian Pech: If you’re trying to get constructive feedback on investigative content, there might be better options than ballot. Hans: One of the benefits is that you get a collection of organized comments; if that could happen outside a ballot that would be okay too. Lloyd: We’ll need to clarify our expectations around comment only ballots. They could be permitted, but only when there is a specific objective for the WG other than just getting opinions. Should be a question or set of questions that they can’t get answered outside of going to ballot. The content sent out to review should be scoped to the questions they want to get answered. You can put out a public review to a community at any time and ask for feedback on JIRA or Gforge without using the ballot process. Need to manage comment and STU ballots in terms of volume. Brian Pech: For some of the quality reviews, there may be some alternative models that could compress those cycles. Would have to actively manage the up front process. Lloyd; There is a serendipitous process for ballot review where you learn things you wouldn’t have learned otherwise from unexpected sources. Maybe we don’t publish IGs at the same time as the FHIR core spec.
      • Ballot process: The next ballot will be a closed ballot, meaning if you were not a participant in May or September, you can’t vote this time around. When published, every page in the spec will clearly state that it is not for ballot if it isn’t part of the ballot scope. It will clearly state which content is for ballot. QA process for this ballot is going to be hand editing those specific pages. If you were in the original pool and didn’t vote, you will be excluded from the pool (although that can be appealed). Reviewed R4 publication schedule on the FHIR Ballot prep page on the FHIR wiki. The targeted R4 normative ballot will open November 5 or 6. Discussion over potential recirculation ballots and what that means in terms of process. Discussion over TSC approval with the potential recirculation ballot closing on 12/21. Potentially will ask for publication approval from TSC the week of the 12/17. Drew Torres: What is the overall stance on normative content pointing to non-normative content? Observation points to a non-normative profile. The implication is someone can change the profile. Lloyd: The section should be specifically flagged as STU. OO will have to vote and have it added to the ballot. Hans departs to attempt to get an OO vote.
      • Paul signed up for Git on Sunday but hasn’t received anything. Josh will add him to the committer’s group and he’ll then have access.
      • Lloyd: Git has the ability to have wiki pages associated with them. The organizational direction is that we are moving from mediawiki to Confluence; however, some content is popping up on the Git wiki. Would like to suggest that for all of the FHIR managed projects, we disable the Git wiki capability. If anything is there, we migrate it to Confluence and have the TSC or EST make the policy for HL7’s use of Git. Josh states that he has trouble finding things on Confluence and it’s easier to use Git for some things.
        • Brian Pech will take to EST re: where wiki content should be and Josh’s desire for version control of wiki content
      • Hans returns and states that OO voted affirmative
  • Adjourned at 4:50 pm Eastern

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International