This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-11-07 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2018-MM-DD Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Lorraine | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| Regrets | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| x | Russ Hamm | ||
| Regrets | Tony Julian | ||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| Ewout Kramer | |||
| Regrets | 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 2018-10-31_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Paul to contact 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 (from 2018-10-05 WGM meeting)
- 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 (from 2018-10-24 call)
- Group to review Project Life Cycle for Product Development (PLCPD) document and add to agenda for 2018-11-14 call (from 2018-10-31 Call)
- Wayne to compare CDAMG resppointments against the preponderance of influence reporting system (from 2018-10-31 Call)
- Paul to contact PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- CDAMG reappointments
- Issues and risks around balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR from different perspectives
- Continued discussion: Currency of Value Set Content
- SGB Communication Plan
- 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 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 2018-10-31_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Sandy/Thom
- VOTE: Lorraine abstains. Remaining in favor.
- Action Items
- Paul to contact 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
- Wayne to reach out to Argonaut project leads re: Argonaut diagnostic report development (from 2018-10-05 WGM meeting)
- Carry forward. Related concern around US Realm stuff – Lorraine thought stuff there would be handled by domain committees, but there is a block vote out for next week for US Realm. Paul notes that it came up in FMG to determine if they could ask people to be interested parties or cosponsors but not go to each individual WG. Lorraine notes work on US Core is going on inside but by a small group outside the WG. Need to discuss what the process will be for involving WGs. The work is being developed by a separate group than the WGs. US Realm has said that the WGs still own the content. Paul: We should review the prior decision and see if US Realm wants to change it. Thom: Anyone can create a profile on a resource. Paul: Things that are being developed for the US Realm, the US Realm people should be able to participate in that profile. Where is the work being done within HL7 and how is it being shared with the committees. Lorraine: The core of the problem is that they’re accelerating things past where the WGs are. One concern is process; another is how we ensure that the WGs responsible for certain resources have the opportunity to engage and bring their expertise forward; and how do we deal with work being done on an accelerated timeline but not by the people who have the domain expertise. Wayne: ONC is driving a lot of this because they own the data elements. More fast track projects will be popping up. US Core affects everything we do, while others will be smaller in scope. There may be a precept in here, perhaps an impact assessment. Paul: One thing missing in US Realm Steering Committee is an actual working committee doing the work outside of the steering committee. Group agrees. Who would flesh that out? PLA? ARB? Lorraine: Need to make sure TSC would agree. Rik: It’s a little strange from an international perspective. Discussion over how the UK does it. Every other affiliate has a place to have these groups outside of HL7 International. Where’s the middle ground with getting the review you want without setting up a US Affiliate. Wayne notes that the board decided not to do that. US Realm voted to work through the other WGs so they will need to make a decision. Lorraine: The difference is where the new content comes from. Paul: We need to find some WG within which the work will be done. Rik: They should just do stuff in the right existing WG. Lorraine: FHIR and FMG work with all of the WGs.
- ACTION: Anne to add US Core coordination with WGs to US Realm agenda/working process to ensure community engagement
- Carry forward. Related concern around US Realm stuff – Lorraine thought stuff there would be handled by domain committees, but there is a block vote out for next week for US Realm. Paul notes that it came up in FMG to determine if they could ask people to be interested parties or cosponsors but not go to each individual WG. Lorraine notes work on US Core is going on inside but by a small group outside the WG. Need to discuss what the process will be for involving WGs. The work is being developed by a separate group than the WGs. US Realm has said that the WGs still own the content. Paul: We should review the prior decision and see if US Realm wants to change it. Thom: Anyone can create a profile on a resource. Paul: Things that are being developed for the US Realm, the US Realm people should be able to participate in that profile. Where is the work being done within HL7 and how is it being shared with the committees. Lorraine: The core of the problem is that they’re accelerating things past where the WGs are. One concern is process; another is how we ensure that the WGs responsible for certain resources have the opportunity to engage and bring their expertise forward; and how do we deal with work being done on an accelerated timeline but not by the people who have the domain expertise. Wayne: ONC is driving a lot of this because they own the data elements. More fast track projects will be popping up. US Core affects everything we do, while others will be smaller in scope. There may be a precept in here, perhaps an impact assessment. Paul: One thing missing in US Realm Steering Committee is an actual working committee doing the work outside of the steering committee. Group agrees. Who would flesh that out? PLA? ARB? Lorraine: Need to make sure TSC would agree. Rik: It’s a little strange from an international perspective. Discussion over how the UK does it. Every other affiliate has a place to have these groups outside of HL7 International. Where’s the middle ground with getting the review you want without setting up a US Affiliate. Wayne notes that the board decided not to do that. US Realm voted to work through the other WGs so they will need to make a decision. Lorraine: The difference is where the new content comes from. Paul: We need to find some WG within which the work will be done. Rik: They should just do stuff in the right existing WG. Lorraine: FHIR and FMG work with all of the WGs.
- Anne to work with Josh to set up SGB page to communicate decisions/precepts by January
- Carry forward
- Austin to discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd (from 2018-10-24 call)
- Group to review Project Life Cycle for Product Development (PLCPD) document and add to agenda for 2018-11-14 call (from 2018-10-31 Call)
- ACTION: Anne to re-send document with context
- Wayne to compare CDAMG reappointments against the preponderance of influence reporting system (from 2018-10-31 Call)
- Reviewed Brett, Kai, and Jean. No issues noted. Austin and Wayne will discuss how to use the statement and report. Will eventually be released to public.
- ACTION: Anne to add reappointments to the TSC agenda for approval
- Reviewed Brett, Kai, and Jean. No issues noted. Austin and Wayne will discuss how to use the statement and report. Will eventually be released to public.
- Paul to contact PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- Issues and risks around balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR from different perspectives
- In order to ballot, you must be a member or purchase the right. Anyone, however, can enter a tracker comment. Lorraine asks if this has been discussed at the Board level; Wayne reports that it hasn’t outside of a very broad sense. Lorraine: One of the core principles is that the weighted influence of our members on the standards is a priority. Other input should be encouraged and considered, but greater weight should be placed on the ballot. Paul: In terms of comments, I think comments should have less priority/weight than a ballot. But are comments from members different from comments from non-members? Lorraine: One issue was the prioritization of comments on normative ballot outlined in Lloyd’s email. Paul: We’ve also never had a group considering changes to material before the ballot because of external comments. If ballot comments have precedence, then you can’t apply comments while the ballot is open. Lorraine: The precedence question was around prioritizing different comments – community comments on a normative ballot vs. ballot comments on STU. Which one is a priority to process? Paul: What we need to work out is what we want as an organization and issue guidance. From a standard perspective, what’s the process we should use for comments vs. ballot items? What’s our position with respect to what it means in terms of comments? Lorraine: In the STU world, we ballot, accept comments, publish as STU, and continue to accept comments. Thom: Where in the process is where we want to consider community comments? Paul: We collect comments during development of a good; community triages and decides what to apply. At some point in time, we declare a review step. Should we accept comments in the review step in addition to ballot items? Should we apply comments received in the time between ballot and publication? Or do we just allow them both to come in and committees prioritize? Lorraine: For V2, we have a cutoff date for which comments can be considered for a specific release. Comments are accepted after that, but they’re applied to the following release. Nobody makes changes to the spec based on those comments after the deadline. FHIR is applying those, however. Paul: The good is changing while it’s under ballot, which could prejudice a later decision.
- For next week: In the event that comments come in during the ballot period before publication, and someone has alerted you to an important thing – what do we do? Does it become a found item? Does the committee have to vote on it? Is it excluded completely until the next version? Or do we hope someone submits it as a ballot item?
- In order to ballot, you must be a member or purchase the right. Anyone, however, can enter a tracker comment. Lorraine asks if this has been discussed at the Board level; Wayne reports that it hasn’t outside of a very broad sense. Lorraine: One of the core principles is that the weighted influence of our members on the standards is a priority. Other input should be encouraged and considered, but greater weight should be placed on the ballot. Paul: In terms of comments, I think comments should have less priority/weight than a ballot. But are comments from members different from comments from non-members? Lorraine: One issue was the prioritization of comments on normative ballot outlined in Lloyd’s email. Paul: We’ve also never had a group considering changes to material before the ballot because of external comments. If ballot comments have precedence, then you can’t apply comments while the ballot is open. Lorraine: The precedence question was around prioritizing different comments – community comments on a normative ballot vs. ballot comments on STU. Which one is a priority to process? Paul: What we need to work out is what we want as an organization and issue guidance. From a standard perspective, what’s the process we should use for comments vs. ballot items? What’s our position with respect to what it means in terms of comments? Lorraine: In the STU world, we ballot, accept comments, publish as STU, and continue to accept comments. Thom: Where in the process is where we want to consider community comments? Paul: We collect comments during development of a good; community triages and decides what to apply. At some point in time, we declare a review step. Should we accept comments in the review step in addition to ballot items? Should we apply comments received in the time between ballot and publication? Or do we just allow them both to come in and committees prioritize? Lorraine: For V2, we have a cutoff date for which comments can be considered for a specific release. Comments are accepted after that, but they’re applied to the following release. Nobody makes changes to the spec based on those comments after the deadline. FHIR is applying those, however. Paul: The good is changing while it’s under ballot, which could prejudice a later decision.
- 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
- Issues and risks around balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR from different perspectives
- Adjourned at 11:04 Eastern time
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
