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

Difference between revisions of "20151004 FMG/FGB WGM"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|colspan="2"|FGB Co-Chair/CTO ||colspan="6"|Members  
 
|colspan="2"|FGB Co-Chair/CTO ||colspan="6"|Members  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||George (Woody) Beeler|| ||Lorraine Constable|| ||Grahame Grieve|| || David Hay   
+
|x ||George (Woody) Beeler||x ||Lorraine Constable||x ||Grahame Grieve||x || David Hay   
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Dave Shaver ||  || Ewout Kramer|| ||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) || regrets ||Calvin Beebe
+
| ||Dave Shaver ||  || Ewout Kramer||x ||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) || x ||Calvin Beebe
 
|-
 
|-
 
| ||John Quinn ||  || || ||  ||  ||  
 
| ||John Quinn ||  || || ||  ||  ||  
 
|-
 
|-
−
|FMG Co chairs|| ||David Hay || ||Lloyd McKenzie
+
|FMG Co chairs||x ||David Hay ||x ||Lloyd McKenzie
 
|-
 
|-
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || Hans Buitendijk|| ||Brian Postlethwaite || ||Paul Knapp || ||
+
| || Hans Buitendijk||x ||Brian Postlethwaite ||x ||Paul Knapp || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Josh Mandel  || ||John Moehrke||||Brian Pech || ||
+
|x ||Josh Mandel  ||x ||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech || ||
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="2" rowspan="3"|observers/guests
 
|colspan="2" rowspan="3"|observers/guests
Line 38: Line 38:
 
*Roll Call
 
*Roll Call
 
*Discussion Topics:
 
*Discussion Topics:
−
**Process improvement between resource editing and profile editing
+
**Hot topics and objectives for the week
−
**SGB
+
**Criteria for DSTU 2.1
 +
**Commit Strategy for 2.1 vs. 3.0
  
  
 +
===Minutes/Conclusions Reached===
 +
*Agenda:
 +
**Add TSC discussion on dot releases, and timeline for 2.1
 +
*Hot topics and agendas for the week:
 +
**Coordinating resource and profile editors – will talk about that in Q4 and bring back on Thursday
 +
**Formal strategy for communicating timelines and engagement with WGs, etc.
 +
**Feedback from WGS: talking to them about maturity levels, new resources/profiles for either 2.1 or 3.0, gforge QA processes, timeline for 2.1
 +
**Need to close out gforge pilot process
 +
**Managing artifacts for FMM level 4+
 +
**How do we ensure that everyone’s resources have been through Connectathon?
 +
**Process formalization for approving use of the FHIR name – Anne to add to tomorrow lunch agenda
 +
***Request comes in through FMG contact
 +
**Technical correction for technical representation of resources – need to decide which to correct and why
 +
***Is there a short quick process we could undertake to review DSTU 2 to sweep up any others for inclusion in that release? Doing multiple TCs reduces confidence.  Paul suggests that we reach out to the WGs to alert them that we’ll be doing a TC for things that are broken and that they should forward any issues they find for inclusion.
 +
*TSC discussion about naming
 +
**Look at harmonizing the naming that we use
 +
**Proposal is to name as a major and minor versions with revisions – major.minor.revision (i.e., 2.0.1)
 +
**Long conversation to have with TSC about when FHIR goes normative
 +
**Original guidelines implied that when you published a dot release, it didn’t reset the time of the DSTU expiring because it was an unballoted correction. Revised policy will add the WG adding their preference for resetting or not.
 +
*Do we want to come up with our candidate scope for 2.1 and go to WGs with that, or do we want to solicit info first from the WGs?
 +
*Reviewed Lloyd’s email describing scope criteria for DSTU 2.1 changes
 +
**Number 6 on email describes  process to potentially allow things to go normative in 3.0. Therefore, we want to get certain things to FMM 5 so they’re ready to do so. Grahame/Paul suggest that it may be too early to do so. Suggestion to make this statement more focused on FMM levels.
 +
**Number 4: Discussion over substantive vs. significant change and the appropriate timeframe for completing those changes (sooner or later).
  
  

Latest revision as of 20:38, 13 October 2015

HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Atlanta 5

Date: 2015-10-04
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Anne
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
x George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay
Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) x Calvin Beebe
John Quinn
FMG Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
observers/guests

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Hot topics and objectives for the week
    • Criteria for DSTU 2.1
    • Commit Strategy for 2.1 vs. 3.0


Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • Agenda:
    • Add TSC discussion on dot releases, and timeline for 2.1
  • Hot topics and agendas for the week:
    • Coordinating resource and profile editors – will talk about that in Q4 and bring back on Thursday
    • Formal strategy for communicating timelines and engagement with WGs, etc.
    • Feedback from WGS: talking to them about maturity levels, new resources/profiles for either 2.1 or 3.0, gforge QA processes, timeline for 2.1
    • Need to close out gforge pilot process
    • Managing artifacts for FMM level 4+
    • How do we ensure that everyone’s resources have been through Connectathon?
    • Process formalization for approving use of the FHIR name – Anne to add to tomorrow lunch agenda
      • Request comes in through FMG contact
    • Technical correction for technical representation of resources – need to decide which to correct and why
      • Is there a short quick process we could undertake to review DSTU 2 to sweep up any others for inclusion in that release? Doing multiple TCs reduces confidence. Paul suggests that we reach out to the WGs to alert them that we’ll be doing a TC for things that are broken and that they should forward any issues they find for inclusion.
  • TSC discussion about naming
    • Look at harmonizing the naming that we use
    • Proposal is to name as a major and minor versions with revisions – major.minor.revision (i.e., 2.0.1)
    • Long conversation to have with TSC about when FHIR goes normative
    • Original guidelines implied that when you published a dot release, it didn’t reset the time of the DSTU expiring because it was an unballoted correction. Revised policy will add the WG adding their preference for resetting or not.
  • Do we want to come up with our candidate scope for 2.1 and go to WGs with that, or do we want to solicit info first from the WGs?
  • Reviewed Lloyd’s email describing scope criteria for DSTU 2.1 changes
    • Number 6 on email describes process to potentially allow things to go normative in 3.0. Therefore, we want to get certain things to FMM 5 so they’re ready to do so. Grahame/Paul suggest that it may be too early to do so. Suggestion to make this statement more focused on FMM levels.
    • Number 4: Discussion over substantive vs. significant change and the appropriate timeframe for completing those changes (sooner or later).


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items



Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20151004_FMG/FGB_WGM&oldid=105713"