2018-10-31 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: 2018-10-31
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


x Calvin Beebe
Regrets Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
Regrets 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 2018-10-24_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
    • Wayne to reach out to Argonaut project leads re: Argonaut diagnostic report development
    • Anne to work with Josh to set up SGB page to communicate decisions/precepts by January
    • Austin to discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd
    • Compare list of CDAMG member reappointments (Marquard, Duteau, Heitmann) to the board's preponderance of influence checklist.
      • Note: They have officially expired on the committee
  • Discussion Topics
  • Parking Lot
    • Mapping coordination
    • Add link to Confluence page from ARB page
    • Review of product 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 2018-10-24_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Calvin/Thom
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      • Russ followed up. They had a motion and voted on the maturity levels.
      • Paull will follow up with PA
        • 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
    • Wayne to reach out to Argonaut project leads re: Argonaut diagnostic report development
      • Carry forward
    • Anne to work with Josh to set up SGB page to communicate decisions/precepts by January
      • On Josh’s list. Carry forward
    • Austin to discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd
      • Carry forward
    • Compare list of CDAMG member reappointments (Marquard, Duteau, Heitmann) to the board's preponderance of influence checklist.
      • See discussion topic below
  • Discussion Topics
    • Preponderance of influence issue/CDAMG reappointments
      • MOTION that, assuming there are no preponderance of influence issues, we recommend that TSC reappoint the three CDAMG members expiring this year: Wayne/Austin
      • VOTE: All in favor
        • ACTION: Wayne to compare against the preponderance of influence reporting system
    • Balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR - prioritization of tracker items vs. ballot items in relation to business goals (from TSC)
      • The issue: When it comes to ballots, you either have to be a member or have purchased the right to ballot. However, we allow anyone to comment in the tracking system. Depending on what guidance we give to committees, a non-member submitting to tracker could have more influence than members. This has a variety of impacts on the organization. Wayne: The other problem is we have no formal process or policy on this. Paul: We don’t want to stop people from contributing, but is there a qualitative difference between ballots and comments and how we should address them?
      • Calvin: We should enumerate the perspectives and decide who is responsible for making the value judgements. Wayne: TSC and SGB should be better about presenting critical issues to the board that we need board input on. Discussion over too much administrative work at TSC and the burdensome approval processes that prevent TSC from tackling some of these issues.
        • For next week: Figure out issues and risks from different perspectives
    • Compare Project Life Cycle for Product Development (PLCPD) to the SGB-developed Product Life Cycle document
      • Austin reviewed document. Austin notes that the document covers the life cycle of a project, not a product. They recently refreshed the document to include newer things like management groups. Discussion over general awareness of this document. Calvin asks if this is a current state spec? As the organization continues to evolve the document will need to be updated. Concerned about keeping it current with the amount of change we’re going through. Are people using this? Seems to be a reference document and nothing else because the TSC hasn’t said it’s mandatory to follow it. Calvin has concerns over how to tweak it when it needs to be updated. Should send back to Project Services for them to consider what they want to do with it – hasn’t been brought to the TSC for action. Calvin: How do you change this when things change? Can people submit change requests? What if someone follows this and it’s wrong? What is the publication strategy? Are they seeking any level of enforcement? Perhaps it’s just a living document within their committee space. What is the intent of the document? Should we formalize it?
      • Austin: If we change the life cycle of a product, this document has to react to that. As we create precepts, they should be aware that the precepts may impact their document. The project moves a product through the life cycle of a standard.
        • ACTION: Group review document and add to agenda for 2018-11-14 call
    • Continued discussion: Currency of Value Set Content
      • Carry forward
    • SGB Communication Plan
      • Carry forward
    • Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
      • Carry forward
    • Precepts We Need to Develop

Carry forward

  • Adjourned at 11:00 am Eastern


Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved