This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2017-09-15 SGB WGM Agenda

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location: TBD

Date: 2017-09-15
Time: 9:00 AM
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Sandy Stuart
x Grahame Grieve
x Brian Pech
x Mary Kay McDaniel

Quorum: Chair + 4


  • Agenda review
  • Discussion Topics
  • Q1:
    • SGB Planning Approach
    • FGB Vitality - 20 minutes
    • Guidance on large cross-organizational project scope statement buy-in review and approvals (arose from US Realm meeting)
      • Advisory function for new product families
    • Substantivity document availability and relation to other families - 15 minutes
    • Discussion of backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families - 30 minutes
    • FHIR R3 ballot discussion re: draft/STU - next steps
  • Q2
    • Precept on adding new tools - 30 minutes
    • Vocabulary interoperability discussion - 20 minutes
    • Precept on mixed ballot content
    • Review Publishing M&C updates regarding dual roles
    • How do we deal with making sure that WGs involve those whose content domain they’re touching? (CIMI and Pharmacy and Lab models)
  • Parking Lot
    • Paul to finish detailed list of 23 items for FHIR ballot that were approved by WG to be STUs
    • Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
    • Draft precept on use of new tools/coordinate with Wayne
    • Write/post precept on vitality assessment
    • Next steps on Substantivity (from ARB)
    • Review Mission and Charter
    • PSS approval process: managing unresponsive parties - propose new precept to TSC
    • Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize


  • Agenda review
  • Discussion Topics
  • Q1:
    • SGB Planning Approach
      • SGB has been purely reactionary thus far. Need to look at where we are and where we want to be in a 6 month window and a 2 year window. What do we have to do to get there? Need to allocate some time per month on a call. Need to look at our greatest risks and determine our priorities. Perhaps we do one call a month dedicated to that. Have been getting management items or items that we’re triaging for others.
    • FGB Vitality - 20 minutes
      • Should there be an FGB? What are they doing? Are they making quorum/having meetings? Don’t seem to be quorate/functional for more than a third of their meetings. They do seem to have a purpose, but not governance. There was one item that they had right before the meeting that they felt was governance (FHIR life cycle). Reviewed minutes of that call. Thom notes that they missed a precept step in developing these rules. Methodology groups should figure out the steps. This is a high risk item across the families.
        • ACTION: Write the precept(s) for engaging the implementer community in the consideration of changes as artifacts mature.
        • ACTION: Anne to send out FHIR Life Cycle Governance document
        • ACTION: Need to encourage FGB to submit any governance precepts to SGB
        • ACTION: Schedule a joint meeting with FGB where they submit their precepts for review
      • Does FGB stay a governance body or move to a different type of group? Paul suggests they continue but we increase our communication/interaction with them. Austin can envision a product director wanting an advisory group. What is the relative decision making power of an advisory group? No decision making – purely advisory.
      • Grahame arrives.
      • Discussion over governance vs. management. Example: SGB may have precept that each family have a versioning precept. Management groups would implement policies and procedures to enact that policy and ensure people are in alignment with that policy.
    • Guidance on large cross-organizational project scope statement buy-in review and approvals (arose from US Realm meeting)
      • Austin: This surfaced at US Realm. Had a project to do case reporting, meaning any clinical data is important – large breadth of impact, as they’ll be profiling everything. They say they’ll be reusing a lot of existing stuff. In many cases they’ll be profiling the wrong resources, however. When does a project have to engage and include the responsible groups? Project is coming out of Public Health WG. There is an equivalent CDA project that has done the same work in the CDA space, but they leveraged the templating work done in Consolidated. A subset of that is over in the FHIR space. Their plan is to take the content and lay it into FHIR without giving committees to have control over how they want to see the manifestation. Calvin: This is a core issue. What is proper engagement in an IG where the domain is not your own? What is the guidance on this? When the development of a product is going to cross cut through the organization, and we encourage engagement, what should trigger it? When it’s cross cutting it’s not SGB that makes that determination, it’s the WGs responsible for the things being profiled should be the ones to say no. That may be the precept. Precepts have to back up the management. We should start with guidances and turn them into precepts. Wayne: When WGs agree to cosponsor, what is the level of engagement? Is there a designated point of contact responsible? Nothing to ensure that what is listed on the PSS is what happens. Discussion over use of available communication channels and the new channel that will be on Jira.
        • ACTION: Develop precepts on large cross-organizational project engagement
        • ACTION: Develop precept on how management groups document, enforce, and manage the precepts regarding inter-WG participation in artifact creation
    • Substantivity document availability and relation to other families - 15 minutes
      • It was determined that we had several different versions of substantivity. We came up with the canonical definition and sent to methodology groups. We asked them to review for fit issues and to give examples within their space of what would constitute substantive change. Austin: There are methodology groups who have not been acknowledged as such. Paul: Given that we now have the canonical definition we should take that and publish it. As new info comes along, then we have a home for it. Calvin: Substantivity can be factored into an assessment of wire or message format. Reviewed ANSI definition. EHR Functional Profile is struggling with how to apply. Austin states that what is missing in this definition is any mention of scope. Discussion over how this applies to EHR Functional Profile.
        • ACTION: Develop precept that management groups must establish in writing a refinement of examples that adhere to the definition of substantive change that apply to their product family. Must monitor, audit, and measure conformance to the definition of substantive change.
        • ACTION: Review Substantive change definition. Probably need to add “changes in scope” after “Examples of HL7 substantive changes are:”
    • Discussion of backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families - 30 minutes
      • This was a board edict. Gets defined at the family level. Need to make clear the difference between backwards and forwards compatibility. Comes up in the case of errata frequently.
        • ACTION: Add to future agenda
  • Q2
    • Precept on adding new tools - 30 minutes
      • DJ and Laura dialed in from HQ, and Brian Pech from EST. To support work on HQ side or in conjunction with tooling, are there precepts needed to help guide, manage or enforce work in tooling space? Brian: Based on inventory that was done, we have over 130 known tools. We do need some guidance provided.
        • ACTION: Work with EST to establish precepts regarding the addition of new tools.
        • ACTION: Anne to invite tooling to SGB call in October
    • FHIR R3 ballot discussion re: draft/STU - next steps
      • Paul reviews the issue. Anne displays spreadsheet that Paul developed with dates committees approved to shift from balloting at draft (FMM0) to being published at STU. Product director’s report covered 2 resources, but there were 23 others that were affected. Paul has shared with FGB and FMG. Need a precept to repair the process. TSC approved the publication in advance of the material being ready. TSC has done this in the past in certain situations where something was cited in government regulation that must be published by a certain date. Need groups that haven’t approved yet need to approve with the assertion that they meant to. Thom: We should give them (Vocab, and PA if needed) a motion that indicates their intent. CodeSystem and Questionnaire were covered by Grahame’s explanation.
        • ACTION: Ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message.
      • Conversation on where this documentation should live. Austin suggests it should be part of the reconciliation package. The management group should have a copy as well. May want to send a copy to Karen.
        • ACTION: Paul to verify with Karen that this documentation is sufficient.
        • ACTION: Draft of precept will need to be created before NIBs are due. Draft of precept will be reviewed at TSC and communicated to management groups in advance of January ballot.
    • Vocabulary interoperability discussion - 20 minutes
    • Precept on mixed ballot content
      • Reviewed Paul’s draft. Austin and Brian depart.
      • We need to do some level of packaging to avoid risk. Discussion over who determines packaging. Management group? Domain committee can say it has a good ready for ballot, while the management group is responsible for packaging. Paul notes there is risk there. Packaging can either be expressed in the NIB in the ballot definition or the spreadsheet, or the artifact may express the packaging. Manifest needs to be materialized outside, Paul asserts. Need to be 4 NIBs if there are 4 ballots.
      • Edited Paul’s precept document.
      • Thom departs. Quorum lost.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:27 pm Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved