2017-01-20 SGB WGM Agenda

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location: Blanco

Date: 2017-01-20
Time: 9:00 AM
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


x Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
x Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Pat Van Dyke


no quorum definition

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Discussion Topics
    • Issues from the week
      • Ballot issues
      • Testing and validation on specification creation tools
      • Where CIMI fits/source of truth/tooling
      • Consistency across standards
      • Quality plans
      • Future of V3/creation of CDAMG
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • General precept
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • ISM
    • Review FGB continuation

Minutes

  • Agenda review
    • MOTION to accept: Lorraine/Austin
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Discussion Topics
    • Issues from the week
      • Ballot issues
        • Spreadsheet was not consistent. Download package that went to the cochairs had hidden columns. Should reinforce that the responsible party on the NIB must check the spreadsheet. Need a checklist for what to check. Wayne reports PIC will be putting together best practices for ballot management. Calvin: Do we have a precept that you have to go through any training to run a ballot? Lorraine notes that some is included in cochair training. Calvin suggests we mandate successful completion of training.
      • PRECEPT: In order to submit a ballot, the submitter must have a documented understanding of the roles and responsibilities of managing and reconciling a ballot. Effective date: TBD
      • PRECEPT: Ballot management tooling must by default support best practices and rules. Effective date: TBD
        • Example: Enforcing that the only valid dispositions of a negative are those defined in the GOM
        • Discussion over rules of deferring negative ballot comments – FHIR has negatives from previous ballots that have been deferred. Who controls the list of issues? Is that HL7.org content? Agreement that yes, HL7 owns the issues. Discussion over ballot vs. non-ballot comments. In addition, there is a proposal to reduce scope of ballot after ballot occurs, which is not allowable. Austin notes that ANSI will look at whole history when ballot goes Normative.
        • Two issues: if committees have things they haven’t been able to address in terms of negatives – if it’s on scope but they’re not going to be able to action on it, is the answer that you can’t defer? Normally you can’t publish until you deal with it. Expected to annotate each negative on the spreadsheet in accordance with the WG’s DMP. Could say not persuasive because it can’t be dealt with now but will be dealt with in the future. Need to clarify that this is best practice. Austin notes you could also call it ‘’’Not Persuasive With Mod’’’.
          • ACTION: Need to confirm that this is what FHIR is doing and not auto deferring without voting.
          • Lorraine checked with Lloyd and we’re closer to policy than we thought. Only autodefers are comments that didn’t come in on ballot.
        • Second issue: FHIR will do a ballot in May 2018 which will include some normative material. If in the resolution of any of that material there is substantive change required, those materials will not proceed to normative or immediately be reballoted; the changes would be applied and have to go through further connectathons. Discussion over how to handle ballot with content at various levels. Calvin: Could we do what we’re doing with V3? Ask voters to withdraw based on a reduction in scope? Paul notes that affects affirmative voters as well. Austin states that will be taken care of in the recirculation. Lorraine: The note about reducing the scope should go to all balloters and they’ll have a chance to object. Tony states that a change in scope is substantive change and triggers a new ballot. A change in datatype is a substantive change. Reviewed definition of substantive change as well as ANSI’s definition, which did indeed support Tony’s statement. Discussion over whether it’s a recirculation or a reballot. Reviewed HL7 essential requirements and discovered that it would have to be a reballot – recirculation may not be used when there is substantive change. Discussion over how FHIR will manage their ballot and what gets registered with ANSI and published. Each unit balloted will have to be labeled.
          • ACTION: Schedule meeting between SGB and FMG in Madrid
          • ACTION: Paul to forward this information to FMG in the meantime
          • ACTION: Anne to add ANSI’s definition of substantive change to the substantive change definition on SGB wiki for reference
        • PRECEPT: A ballot package must clearly identify the Individual Ballots within the package which will be progressed or not as a standard.
      • Review FGB continuation
        • Lorraine notes very little FGB activity this cycle. Key resources are often unavailable. Many original issues have been taken over by the product director. Grahame brought up an article about organizational strategies to avoid being stale; none were FHIR specific. Nothing has come to FGB this cycle that was FHIR-specific.
          • ACTION: Anne to add SGB Annual Review of FGB to 2017-02-20 (or future) FGB agenda; Paul and Calvin to attend from SGB. Lorraine and Wayne to socialize it on 2017-02-06 call.
      • Testing and validation on specification creation tools
        • In the FHIR build materials, when you do a run and build, there is a bunch of quality information that comes out at the end – it will issue errors, information, or warnings. Errors stop the build. Warning and information will let it proceed. If you have warnings, you can’t be higher than draft. That is not supposed to alter. A change was made to tighten up and it got overly tight just before Christmas so it misidentified and was reporting 1800 information items that become warnings. 2-3 weeks of time was lost addressing items. The issue for SGB is lifecycle management/tooling management. The question is should we have a precept that we should test our software. The tooling is not a product – it’s what we use to ensure our specifications are meeting our policies. Calvin suggests it’s a note item to the TSC. Lorraine notes that the mission and charter states it’s an EST role. Development of build process has been assigned to FHIR-I, but sustainability and oversight is still EST. Reviewed FHIR-I’s M&C for tooling and publishing. Calvin suggests SGB should forward to review M&C.
          • ACTION: Anne to add review of issue to TSC Exec call agenda
      • Where CIMI fits/source of truth/tooling
        • Group reviews IIM&T newsletter regarding CLIM. CLIM is a broad project that is proposing to do something fairly fundamental across the organization using a silo approach. Represents a different way of thinking and looking and modeling. It is a product family by definition. Project scope statement hasn’t been approved yet. Need to determine appropriate engagement to bring in the rest of the organization. They have been asked by FTSD and ARB to engage with EST. Calvin: Do we have responsibility in the establishment of product families to do something? Group agrees; Lorraine reviews the steps in the BAM. Steps are a proposal is created, it is reviewed by methodology and governance representatives, an assessment is made if the organization is ready, etc. Calvin states we could make a recommendation to TSC. Wayne notes that CIMI has its own structure with a governance council – they have their own life outside of HL7. ARE they an actual WG, as their website states that HL7 provides administrative support? They may feel they can do things faster if they go their own way working under HSPC. May need an MOU. The fact that they are a WG makes things difficult. Have no published DMP.
          • MOTION to punt to Wayne: Austin/Lorraine
          • VOTE: All in favor
      • Consistency across standards
        • Discussed in ARB. MnM will be looking at datatype differences. Wayne states we may want to look to the future rather than work to fix the errors of the past. Lorraine theorizes it’s likely a much smaller set if we focus on the things that people are actually using. Don’t need to worry about the datatypes we’ve never used. Could potentially propose a core set of essential datatypes and find out if people are using additional dataypes. Will look at this further after MnM’s analysis comes back.
      • Quality plans
        • What are the responsibilities of MGs? The BAM states that they ensure the quality criteria developed by methodology are applied.
        • PRECEPT: For each family, methodology determines what the quality critera are, and the management groups establish a plan to ensure the criteria are applied.
        • MOTION to accept the precept: Austin/Lorraine
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • MOTION that all precepts created in Q1 and Q2 are accepted by SGB: Lorraine/Austin
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • Future of V3/creation of CDAMG
        • Future of V3: Had a meeting and are going forward with plan to determine the future of V3 and how to manage it.
        • CDAMG: Met on Monday. Got feedback on roles. Discussed role of Structured Documents; decisions haven’t been made yet. Some confusion regarding management vs. governance. Did some education regarding what the responsibilities are for a management group. Will be discussing further in Madrid on Tuesday Q3.
        • Discussion over where on the website management groups/families live. They don’t fit nicely in the SDs or the WGs. TSC to determine.
    • Next meeting in Madrid: Sunday Q3, Friday Q1 and Q2.
    • No call next week. Resume the week after.
  • For Upcoming calls:
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ownership of content
    • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't





© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved