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

Difference between revisions of "2016-05-25 SGB Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst:: SGB Template}}")
 
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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: ''' Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371, <br/>https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/177894709  
 
'''Location: ''' Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371, <br/>https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/177894709  
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2016-00-00'''<br/> '''Time: xx-xx PM Eastern'''
+
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2016-05-25'''<br/> '''Time: 10:00 AM Eastern'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
Line 39: Line 39:
 
| || Calvin Beebe
 
| || Calvin Beebe
 
|-
 
|-
| ||Lorraine Constable
+
| x||Lorraine Constable
 
|-
 
|-
 
||| Russ Hamm
 
||| Russ Hamm
 
|-
 
|-
| || Tony Julian  
+
|x || Tony Julian  
 
|-
 
|-
||| Paul Knapp
+
|x|| Paul Knapp
 
|-
 
|-
| || Austin Kreisler
+
| x|| Austin Kreisler
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || Wayne Kubick
 
| || Wayne Kubick
Line 53: Line 53:
 
| || Mary Kay McDaniel
 
| || Mary Kay McDaniel
 
|-
 
|-
| || Ken McCaslin
+
|x || Ken McCaslin
 
|-
 
|-
| || Rik Smithies
+
|x || Rik Smithies
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|colspan="4" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|-
 
|-
|colspan="4" style="font-style:italic; color:green;" |''no quorum definition''
+
|colspan="4" style="font-style:italic; color:green;" |chair +4''
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 73: Line 73:
 
========================================================--->
 
========================================================--->
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 +
*Review minutes
 +
**[[2016-05-08_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 +
**[[2016-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 +
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
*Discussion Topics
+
*Action Items
 +
**Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
 +
**Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
 +
*Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
 +
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 +
**CDA Product Family Formation
 +
**Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from [http://hl7tsc.org/wiki/index.php?title=2016-02-22_TSC_Call_Agenda 2016-02-22 TSC Call])
 +
**Role of Steering Divisions
 +
**FHIR Governance Board
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
 +
*Review minutes
 +
**[[2016-05-08_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 +
**[[2016-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
  
 
+
*Agenda review
 +
*Action Items
 +
**Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
 +
***PIC made the decision to suspend the survey.
 +
**Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
 +
***Anne forwarded materials from HTA to listserve
 +
*Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
 +
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 +
***Need to invite Grahame to discuss
 +
**CDA Product Family Formation
 +
**Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from [http://hl7tsc.org/wiki/index.php?title=2016-02-22_TSC_Call_Agenda 2016-02-22 TSC Call])
 +
**Role of Steering Divisions
 +
**FHIR Governance Board
 +
**Balloting standards which are cross-product family
 +
***When it comes to publication, we have different management and licensing rules. Specific example forthcoming is FluentPath. It is the first product being produced by HL7 that meets this criteria. V2, 3, and CDA are under one administrative process and usage access license. FHIR is under a different administrative process and license. FluentPath is applicable to both. No policy for addressing that situation. Ken: I believe we do have a policy. There is always a primary sponsor. When we do changes and updates, the WG who has primary responsibility for the product family should be the primary sponsor. When there are WGs that are sponsoring changes to FHIR, because they have domain expertise, then in that case at least FHIR should be a cosponsor, but because the domain expert is taking the lead, it should go through that steering division. Major changes to product families should always be driven by the owning WG. Paul: Are you referring to the management of the project, or into which realm we publish? Ken: the management of the project. Paul: I'm addressing the publication. Lorraine: FluentPath is the first time we have a cross-product family artifact. Which licensing should it fit under? Did we ever get a PSS for FluentPath? Paul: Yes, it was raised without a PSS but ultimately it found a home and there is an approved PSS. Not a FHIR project. Owned by ITS. Lorraine: Why would it not follow the normal FHIR process? Paul: How do we determine where things go which could go under one administration over the other? Ken: When we get to the publishing piece, I think it is absolutely required that the product family drive publishing. 1) They have the criteria that they have established for the way their artifacts get published. 2) They want to make sure there is consistent behavior across all components. Even if another WG is making changes, they should still validate. We also need to evaluate if it should be a new product family. Paul: There has been a request from FHIR that it goes under FHIR administration and license. There needs to be some understanding of the latitudes which committees or family groups can exercise in determining what we do. One difference between licensure: FHIR model allows immediate access to any generated materials. HL7 license gives a 90 day protection of that material to members. Lorraine: What is the definition of material that falls under the FHIR license? That is a core question. Paul: not sure where the edges are. Does a committee get to pick which way they want to follow? Austin: We're talking about IP here, correct? Ken: we have IP rules in place. Not discussing how they do publishing, we're talking about how to decide which process to go under. What is the criteria to decide? There is a process hole. Ken: we need policies that will meet the criteria we want overall, not just in reference to the current situation. Austin: let's look at this from the perspective of risk.
 +
***Ken: what is the strategy? Define strategy, then define scope within the strategy. Paul: Going forward we can bring this from the top down and the bottom up and make our way from both sides. Then start to look at what the issues are and the division points to put together the precepts and policies. Ken: Need a high level look at things before doing things like defining the role of steering divisions and the role of the product director, etc. Need to look at what overall standards governance means regardless of product families, etc. Paul: we're using the issues that are coming up to inform the process. So we can go back to the organizational diagrams that PLA has put together with our list of precepts and look at how we expect them to be applied to support the management. Lorraine: to Austin's point, the precepts are usually around managing risks. Ken: have we put a risk assessment together? Paul: no, not yet. Ken: take one of the risks you have - such as unclear processes of how things are published - and then start driving down from there. Lorraine: We should start with the risk and precepts material that Ron originally put together. Austin: should also look at material put together by TRAC.
 +
****ACTION: Lorraine will dig up that material and send to group
 +
****ACTION: Homework - everyone think about risks they're seeing and forward to the group for consideration
 +
*Adjourned at 10:59 am Eastern
  
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
Line 108: Line 141:
  
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
*[[2016mmdd SGB Conference Call]]
+
*[[2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call]]
  
 
|}
 
|}
  
 
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved
 
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved

Latest revision as of 21:21, 31 May 2016

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371,
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/177894709

Date: 2016-05-25
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
x Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
chair +4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Action Items
    • Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
    • Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
  • Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
    • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
    • CDA Product Family Formation
    • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
    • Role of Steering Divisions
    • FHIR Governance Board

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Action Items
    • Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
      • PIC made the decision to suspend the survey.
    • Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
      • Anne forwarded materials from HTA to listserve
  • Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
    • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
      • Need to invite Grahame to discuss
    • CDA Product Family Formation
    • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
    • Role of Steering Divisions
    • FHIR Governance Board
    • Balloting standards which are cross-product family
      • When it comes to publication, we have different management and licensing rules. Specific example forthcoming is FluentPath. It is the first product being produced by HL7 that meets this criteria. V2, 3, and CDA are under one administrative process and usage access license. FHIR is under a different administrative process and license. FluentPath is applicable to both. No policy for addressing that situation. Ken: I believe we do have a policy. There is always a primary sponsor. When we do changes and updates, the WG who has primary responsibility for the product family should be the primary sponsor. When there are WGs that are sponsoring changes to FHIR, because they have domain expertise, then in that case at least FHIR should be a cosponsor, but because the domain expert is taking the lead, it should go through that steering division. Major changes to product families should always be driven by the owning WG. Paul: Are you referring to the management of the project, or into which realm we publish? Ken: the management of the project. Paul: I'm addressing the publication. Lorraine: FluentPath is the first time we have a cross-product family artifact. Which licensing should it fit under? Did we ever get a PSS for FluentPath? Paul: Yes, it was raised without a PSS but ultimately it found a home and there is an approved PSS. Not a FHIR project. Owned by ITS. Lorraine: Why would it not follow the normal FHIR process? Paul: How do we determine where things go which could go under one administration over the other? Ken: When we get to the publishing piece, I think it is absolutely required that the product family drive publishing. 1) They have the criteria that they have established for the way their artifacts get published. 2) They want to make sure there is consistent behavior across all components. Even if another WG is making changes, they should still validate. We also need to evaluate if it should be a new product family. Paul: There has been a request from FHIR that it goes under FHIR administration and license. There needs to be some understanding of the latitudes which committees or family groups can exercise in determining what we do. One difference between licensure: FHIR model allows immediate access to any generated materials. HL7 license gives a 90 day protection of that material to members. Lorraine: What is the definition of material that falls under the FHIR license? That is a core question. Paul: not sure where the edges are. Does a committee get to pick which way they want to follow? Austin: We're talking about IP here, correct? Ken: we have IP rules in place. Not discussing how they do publishing, we're talking about how to decide which process to go under. What is the criteria to decide? There is a process hole. Ken: we need policies that will meet the criteria we want overall, not just in reference to the current situation. Austin: let's look at this from the perspective of risk.
      • Ken: what is the strategy? Define strategy, then define scope within the strategy. Paul: Going forward we can bring this from the top down and the bottom up and make our way from both sides. Then start to look at what the issues are and the division points to put together the precepts and policies. Ken: Need a high level look at things before doing things like defining the role of steering divisions and the role of the product director, etc. Need to look at what overall standards governance means regardless of product families, etc. Paul: we're using the issues that are coming up to inform the process. So we can go back to the organizational diagrams that PLA has put together with our list of precepts and look at how we expect them to be applied to support the management. Lorraine: to Austin's point, the precepts are usually around managing risks. Ken: have we put a risk assessment together? Paul: no, not yet. Ken: take one of the risks you have - such as unclear processes of how things are published - and then start driving down from there. Lorraine: We should start with the risk and precepts material that Ron originally put together. Austin: should also look at material put together by TRAC.
        • ACTION: Lorraine will dig up that material and send to group
        • ACTION: Homework - everyone think about risks they're seeing and forward to the group for consideration
  • Adjourned at 10:59 am Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved