2018-10-31 FMG concall

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597 (voice and screen)		Date: 2018-mm-dd Time: 4:00 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	Brett Marquard, Eric Haas, Didi Davis

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 2018-10-24_FMG_concall
• Action items
  • Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
  • Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
  • Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
  • Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
  • Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
  • Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
  • Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
  • Brian Post to update Invoice
  • Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
  • John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
• Review Items
  • NIBs for BSeR and VRDR projects
• Discussion Topics
  • Followup from last week's review of US FHIR Core Update to FHIR R4 PSS - Brett Marquard
  • Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
  • What content is/isn't attracting ballot feedback
  • Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
  • Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
  • SGB –
  • MnM –
  • FMG Liaisons –
• Process management
  • Ballot Planning
  • Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
• AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
  • Add voting on outstanding STU ballots
    • MOTION to approve agenda: Lloyd/Josh
    • VOTE: All in favor
• Minutes from 2018-10-24_FMG_concall
  • MOTION to accept: Lloyd/John
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action items
  • Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
    • Carry forward
  • Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
    • Carry forward
  • Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
    • Work has been superseded by Patient Care.
      • Anne to reach out to Patient Care to update the existing proposal.
  • Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct at WGM
    • Carry forward
  • Brian Post to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement at WGM
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition at WGM
    • Carry forward
  • Brian Post to update Invoice
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2 at WGM
    • Carry forward
  • John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
    • Carry forward
• Review Items
  • NIBs for BSeR and VRDR projects
    • Need to review all NIBs to make sure IGs are building properly and to ensure items are ready to go to ballot.
    • VRDR and BSeR are not in the build.
      • ACTION: Inform Lynn that those two aren’t eligible to go to ballot this cycle
    • Definition of Record-Entry Lifecycle-Event is murky. It’s run through the IG publisher, but it hasn’t been run through the publisher for some time and it will take some time to get it running. Could publish it as is; we could update it and try to get it to run again; or we could pull it out of core. Hasn’t been updated to reflect the core spec although it publishes in the core spec. Lloyd: We could punt the balloting, but will we publish in R4? Grahame states we can’t pull it out of R4. Decision to publish it the way it is and say they can’t ballot this round, then pull it out of the core spec in R5.
      • ACTION: Tell Lynn to pull from ballot
• Discussion Topics
  • Followup from last week's review of US FHIR Core Update to FHIR R4 PSS - Brett Marquard
    • Brett here to follow up. Question about other interested parties and cosponsorship. It’s tricky with the guide that crosses so many WGs to manage cosponsorship. Is it appropriate to email all the WGs to ask if they are interested? Did not have these groups on the original ballot. Paul: You can email them to ask if they want to cosponsor or be an interested party and what their desired level of involvement is. Brett: Would prefer to just notify people separately when their resources are being profiled. Discussion over communication levels and how to manage this efficiently. Could invite the groups to US Realm next week to discuss. John: Approach to notify them of what is happening, when you’re meeting, whom to contact would likely be sufficient. In the past Imaging wasn’t aware of those details and it would’ve been helpful. Brett will put out an email tomorrow to the cochairs of the WGs with details and invitation to US Realm next week. John: When your IG is going to constrain a resource, the owning WG should be involved. Lloyd: Any profile or extension on a resource must be approved by the WG that owns that content.
  • September ballot status:
    • Lloyd has gone through and found all the negatives from the various ballots to date. Still a number that are outstanding. Chasing people on withdrawals. On the September ballot we have no issues for Vocabulary. On Infrastructure, there is one outstanding from Christopher Phillips and one from Cerner that Lloyd will hear back on, plus one that technically doesn’t count. Observation: Several that don’t count and several that will be withdrawn. Patient: Two that don’t count.
    • May ballot: There are a bunch from Cerner that haven’t been withdrawn. Hans will contact. Patient: A number from Claude Nanjo. Epic has not yet withdrawn. Quest has a negative balloter who is no longer with them; they are attempting to contact the person to withdraw. If we can’t get a withdrawal, we may be able to say that since it wasn’t on the most recent ballot we won’t recirculate. Terminology: Comments from Claude and one from Epic. December 8th is when we would start recirculation if we have to. Will review draft ballot that opens on 11/6 when Grahame has it completed.
    • Group reviews build.fhir.org/fmg. Which do we want to appear in the published specification? OperationDefinition and Paramters. VerificationResult and TestReport. Everything under pending.
      • David departs. Lloyd takes over as chair.
    • Need to encourage WGs to make proposals for those things without proposals. EBMs we probably shouldn’t publish. ResearchStudy, ResearchSubject, AdverseEvent – we’re waiting for WG to say they want it to be approved.
      • ACTION: Lloyd to contact WGs to solicit resource proposals
        • MOTION to grandfather OperationDefinition and Parameters: Paul/Brian Post
        • VOTE: All in favor
  • Criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs
    • Discussion over work involved for implementers when URIs change. Grahame states we can make special arrangements if we need to. If defining an international scope IG and creating operations, extensions, search parameters, should those have a canonical URL of the IG or a canonical URL of the core spec, and how do we manage that? As you’re designing an international IG, when to you choose the type of canonical?
    • What is the guidance that we want to have when an extension is defined in an IG vs. the core spec? Useful to put things you want to try out in an IG. If you need documentation around how to use it, it should probably stay with the IG. What is the problem with having it published in core but not canonically in core? Lloyd: If it’s published in core and canonically in core but you have no hope of using it without going to an IG, that’s an issue. The original URI could just be the URI regardless. Grahame states there is a problem when there’s a mismatch. Some are simply not useful in Core. Lloyd: We have no criteria around what defines an extension in Core.
    • ACTION: Carry forward to next week
  • What content is/isn't attracting ballot feedback
    • Need to think about how to drive attention to content that isn’t getting attention, or make clear that this content is not well reviewed. We do have a check in the FMM levels but we may want to revisit those criteria to describe breadth and diversity of feedback; it’s sometimes the same small group of people reviewing each time.
    • Another issue is the attachment to balloting. Stuff passes ballot that doesn’t actually reflect the will or intention of the community and those things don’t get picked up. John: It’s a matter of coming up with evaluation criteria. Mathematically passing a ballot doesn’t mean it’s used. Lloyd: Ballot reviewers are a precious resource and would rather not waste their time with stuff that isn’t likely to be used. We don’t want to produce content just to produce content; need to focus on community development sooner than later.
  • Review standard PSS form to suggest changes
    • Carry forward
  • Setting expectations around community establishment and real-world testing before content is allowed to go to ballot
    • Carry forward
• Reports
• Adjourned at 5:33 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2018-11-07 FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International