2017-05-07 SGB WGM Agenda

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: Borox		Date: 2017-05-07 Time: 2:45 PM
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
x	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
x	Mario Hyland
x	John Roberts
Quorum: Chair +4

Agenda

• Joint w/ARB
• Discussion Topics
  • ISM
  • Outcome of TSC Essentialism
    • Instructions to SDs/WGs
  • PLA/CDA MG
  • Ballots with multiple ballot levels

Minutes

• Austin chairing.
• Discussion Topics
  • PLA/CDA MG
    • TSC made some edits yesterday; group reviews. Process change with publication requests; group WG would submit pub request to HQ and Anne will send to management group before TSC. Paul asks why NIB approval came out of this document. Tony: It’s just a work item to tee things up for HQ. Other changes include that the escalation is to TSC, not SGB.
    • Several changes made to structure section – group reviews. Removal of chair of SGB was because of separation of concerns. Changed to one member to serve as liaison to SGB, rather than chair of SGB sitting on MG. Discussion over issues surrounding that decision. The specific intent by PLA was to include the chair of the SGB. Concern that those reasons weren’t taken into consideration. In addition, the BAM says that the management group reports to the governance board, and document was changed to have it report to TSC. Discussion that if these changes are accepted, then perhaps we have to change the BAM, and also review the other management group M&Cs. Tony consults the BAM. Calvin notes that the GOM establishes policy – not the BAM, although we should pay attention to it. Lorraine notes that she brought up that FMG did it this way originally and it didn’t work. Calvin: The MG has to abide by the governance guidelines but they don’t report to the governance body, which is why this separation was encouraged. This liaison member was the way to encourage the needed communication between the groups. Austin: The question is whether we think this is a showstopper, or do we go through another round of lessons learned and change it? The issues when we did it this way with FGB were that FMG was making governance decisions, and FGB couldn’t get quorum. They needed someone on FMG who didn’t have another hat who could express the will of FGB on FMG. The governance perspective needed to be represented. Austin: We should strongly recommend that anyone who is that liaison is also an SGB member. Lorraine: And it should not be the chair of the management group. Austin: We should accept it, and when we put together our slate we should have at least one member of SGB be on the slate.
    • MOTION to endorse the changes: Paul/Rik
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Outcome of TSC Essentialism
    • Merging WGs has been de-emphasized at this point. Sustainability/scalability is the stated solution we’re heading for. Decision that merging workgroups doesn’t solve that problem, and any merges need to make sense from the WG’s point of view. WGs will be considering whether or not their current WG name reflects their current mission and charter, as well as if their mission and charter reflects their true activities and if it differentiates you from other WGs. Paul notes that we seem to be at a steady state. Calvin notes that we brought someone in from the outside (Wayne) who couldn’t make heads nor tails of what these groups do; we have a new pair of eyes saying that this doesn’t make sense. Lorraine: We had some discussion about the difference between the view from the outside world and how we structure ourselves to get our work done. Paul suggests we ask WGs to give us a list of business topics that your WG covers – therefore we could map to business topics. Lorraine notes that could be part of the charter. Tony states that we should also ask WGs what they produce.
  • Ballots with multiple ballot levels
    • In FGB it came up that they’re going to declare some material STU and some normative. If you have a defined scope of normative and some is ready to go forward and some isn’t after reconciliation, that is substantive change. ANSI is clear on this. You have to define the scope that is a ballot package and that package succeeds or fails in terms of normative. You can’t deprecate anything because that would be a change in scope. You have to pick your package on those things you think can pass. It is right there in the ANSI essential requirements. The package goes as a package and rises and falls together. The next FHIR ballot with mixed content will be May. Should perhaps practice the packaging.
    • Versioning was to be discussed Wednesday Q3, but instead it was discussed yesterday. Paul: They wanted the input of Connectathon participants, which is why it was brought up. But proper notice wasn’t given of the opportunity to contribute. Will they still talk about it Q3? Lorraine: They said it wouldn’t be because the decision was made yesterday. Decision was made it was a FHIR-I issue rather than a Conformance issue. Ken arrives. Paul describes issue to Ken. Ken states that it’s not a real decision until it’s discussed, minuted, and voted on at a real meeting. You’re supposed to post agendas, meet, review agenda, meet quorum, and discuss and vote on the issue. We need to send out a notification that the topic that was going to be discussed on Wednesday will now be discussed at FHIR-I on Monday. Must follow DMPs. Conversations can be had before meetings to determine how people feel about an issue and come up with a proposed solution. So the outcome of those conversations are proposals, not decisions.
• Adjourned at 4:11 PM

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved