2018-01-28 SGB WGM Agenda

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location: TBD

Date: 2018-01-28
Time: 11:00 AM Central
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Sandy Stuart
x Ben McCallister (observer)
x Mary Kay McDaniel


Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Joint with ARB
    • ISM work
    • Scope of Product Management Group responsibilities (from FHIR Path issue)

Minutes

  • Agenda review
    • Add assimilating FGB
  • Joint with ARB
    • ISM work
      • Have been working with ARB on Interoperability Specification Matrix. The goal is to be able to explain the ISM and put the products in context so people can figure out what they’re doing. Audience may be the product family management and governance groups. Also cleaned up the list of products for the project scope statement.
      • Reviewed Tony’s matrix of products applied to the ISM. Parentheses indicate a loose coupling to that viewpoint.
      • Discussion over placements in grid.
      • Next step is to complete review and then move to TSC. May add the information to the PSS. Wayne notes concern that it may be confusing on the PSS. Lorraine: The intent is to avoid gaps and overlaps, making sure our products are covering what they need to. Product families may make more sense than PSS to determine if gaps are being considered. Need to add CDA to grid.
        • ACTION: Add to upcoming CDA Management Group call
      • Discussion over whether joint calls need to continue. Mary Kay notes that actions from TSC meeting yesterday created continued work for SGB/ARB together. Tony: There’s a misunderstanding about what is in the BAM regarding when new product suitability is determined. What is the trigger to help us understand when we need to look at the ramifications of large projects such as RDAM?
        • ACTION: Add BAM guidance on process for product adoption to parking lot
    • FGB assimilation
      • Discussion over what members may want to serve on SGB. Lloyd is ex officio because he is an FMG cochair. Would it make sense from an SGB perspective to have ex officio positions for people on any of the management groups we oversee? Lorraine states that will likely make us too big. It would make sense if there was a body that wrapped around management groups. SGB establishes management groups but is not the reporting authority. If there is a problem with a precept or standards issue, then they can bring it to us. Management issues go to TSC. We need to add people here to replace Calvin and some of Austin’s time. Ewout makes sense to come from FGB and has expressed interest. Discussion over whether Grahame could serve as an individual or product director and if that would make sense. Wayne serves as de facto product director in the absence of others.
        • MOTION that FGB as a separate committee be dissolved and merged into SGB: Lorraine/Tony
        • AMENDEMENT: Effective Friday morning
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • If Ewout is agreeable, Paul would like to take motion to recommend that an invitation be extended to Ewout to TSC on Tuesday.
        • MOTION to recommend that an invitation be extended to Ewout to serve on SGB: Lorraine/Tony
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • Lorraine notes that a dissolution request should be submitted.
    • Scope of Product Management Group responsibilities (from FHIR Path issue)
      • Reviewed document Paul and Lorraine put together (add link)
      • Question arose in relation to FHIR Path, which is used in FHIR but isn’t actually a FHIR resource or artifact. It is a mapping specification used within FHIR. Some characteristics were developed in consultation and work with FHIR people, but it is in fact part of a larger specification. The question was whether or not FHIR Management Group was responsible for it. This document states that product family management groups are responsible for the management of the specifications which are wholly contained within the product family. This would not include items such as FHIR Path for FMG. FHIR Path is a wholly contained subset of CQL. FHIR Path as an implementation guide on CQL would be a FHIR artifact. ITS is lead on FHIR Path as a specification. The WG was surprised that there was confusion over who was responsible. Wayne notes that there may be cases where we assign something to a product family, so we should add “assigned to” to the verbiage.
        • PRECEPTS:
          • Product Family Management Groups are responsible for the management of specifications which are wholly contained within or assigned to the product family;
          • They may develop IGs or guidance on Cross-Paradigm technologies which are used within the Product Family; and
          • They may represent the needs and concerns of the work groups within the Product Family to the Work Group which is responsible for the Cross Paradigm Specification.
        • MOTION to accept and move back to TSC: Lorraine/Thom
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • ACTION: Anne to add to TSC agenda and add to precepts as Scope of Product Family Management Groups
    • Discussion over whether or not we’ll keep this joint meeting next time. Decision to keep it. Will need to figure out whether we go back to Q3 or stay in Q2.
  • Adjourned at 12:23 pm

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved