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

Difference between revisions of "2018-09-19 SGB Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst:: SGB Template}}")
 
Line 12: Line 12:
 
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 SGB Minutes''' <br/>
 
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''HL7 SGB Minutes''' <br/>
 
'''Location: ''' <br/>https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637
 
'''Location: ''' <br/>https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637
−
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2018-MM-DD'''<br/> '''Time: 10:00 AM Eastern'''
+
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2018-09-19'''<br/> '''Time: 10:00 AM Eastern'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
Line 78: Line 78:
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
−
*Approve Minutes of [[2018-MM-DD_SGB_Conference_Call]]
+
*Approve Minutes of [[2018-09-05_SGB_Conference_Call]]
 
*Action Items
 
*Action Items
 +
**Paul to contact Vocab/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
 +
**Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
 +
**Calvin to draft continuous maintenance plan for FHIR. Identify the risks. Define continuous maintenance. Address review process. Address what activities are allowable/not allowable during the review process. Craft precepts to address high priority risks.
 +
**Calvin to review the organizational issue from the board perspective. How do we position this process in the marketplace? Need to look at business and membership impacts.
 
*Discussion Topics
 
*Discussion Topics
 +
**Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
 +
**SGB Communication Plan
 +
**Large architectures coming in:
 +
***Evaluate PSS process to potentially provide earlier visibility
 +
***How should a product family-type project be documented and reviewed - is PSS enough?
 +
***When it affects cross-organizational methodology, PFMGs need to have a review/say - potential precept
 +
**Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
 +
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=List_of_Precepts_Under_Development '''Precepts We Need to Develop''']
 
*Parking Lot
 
*Parking Lot
 +
**Mapping coordination
 +
***Add link to Confluence page from ARB page
 +
**Review of project 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'''
 +
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Product_Director_Page 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===
 
===Minutes===

Revision as of 21:06, 18 September 2018

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637

Date: 2018-09-19
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Calvin Beebe
Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
Tony Julian
Paul Knapp
Ewout Kramer
Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
Rik Smithies
Sandy Stuart
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-09-05_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Paul to contact Vocab/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
    • Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
    • Calvin to draft continuous maintenance plan for FHIR. Identify the risks. Define continuous maintenance. Address review process. Address what activities are allowable/not allowable during the review process. Craft precepts to address high priority risks.
    • Calvin to review the organizational issue from the board perspective. How do we position this process in the marketplace? Need to look at business and membership impacts.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
    • SGB Communication Plan
    • Large architectures coming in:
      • Evaluate PSS process to potentially provide earlier visibility
      • How should a product family-type project be documented and reviewed - is PSS enough?
      • When it affects cross-organizational methodology, PFMGs need to have a review/say - potential precept
    • 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 project 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

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2018-09-19_SGB_Conference_Call&oldid=161438"