This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2018-03-21 FMG concall"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | ||
| − | [[2018-03- | + | [[2018-03-28 FMG concall]] |
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:50, 28 March 2018
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2018-03-21 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | . | Wayne Kubick, CTO | ||||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Sandy Vance | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-03-14_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- Brian to take VerificationResult resource to Security, OO, Pharmacy, and Attachments to gather input on the notion of Verification and what it would mean
- Review Items
- Discussion Topics
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to accept: Hans
- Minutes from 2018-03-14_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: John/Lloyd
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action items
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- Carry forward
- Brian to take VerificationResult resource to Security, OO, Pharmacy, and Attachments to gather input on the notion of Verification and what it would mean
- Carry forward
- Grahame to reach out to international council re: effectiveness of international IGs
- Review Items
- Discussion Topics
- IG risk mitigation
- Reviewed document. Hans thinks it downplays the role of IGs. May need to be tighter. Need to be clear about what conformance means. If you claim conformance, you must conform. Discussion over those IGs that are part of core and not part of core. If you're going to write an IG that you intend to be globally applicable and you think everyone should follow it, should it be in the spec or in an IG? Grahame feels it should be in the spec. Hans disagrees; perhaps it is depending on what you are looking to achieve. Discussion over if it has more standing in core. Lloyd suggests that if everything is in core it will become impossible to navigate and it dilutes the content. Discussion over potential criteria for including in core. Needs to be a high bar. Should enforce that there is only one HL7-maintained IG for an existing problem. The other kind of content we have in core is tiny stuff like extensions, small stand-alone profiles. One criteria for part of core is that it is mandatory for everyone who implements FHIR. But we have other stuff in core that doesn't meet that criteria. Grahame: there's a grandfathering thing. Perhaps we take some of it out. One we have the criteria we can apply it. Do we allow anything in core in terms of extensions/profiles that does not meet the criteria of mandatory use? Grahame: It makes sense to have stuff in the spec that aids usability. Genetic history is a good example; don't know where else it would go.
- ACTION: Lloyd will write up some candidate criteria for next week
- Reviewed document. Hans thinks it downplays the role of IGs. May need to be tighter. Need to be clear about what conformance means. If you claim conformance, you must conform. Discussion over those IGs that are part of core and not part of core. If you're going to write an IG that you intend to be globally applicable and you think everyone should follow it, should it be in the spec or in an IG? Grahame feels it should be in the spec. Hans disagrees; perhaps it is depending on what you are looking to achieve. Discussion over if it has more standing in core. Lloyd suggests that if everything is in core it will become impossible to navigate and it dilutes the content. Discussion over potential criteria for including in core. Needs to be a high bar. Should enforce that there is only one HL7-maintained IG for an existing problem. The other kind of content we have in core is tiny stuff like extensions, small stand-alone profiles. One criteria for part of core is that it is mandatory for everyone who implements FHIR. But we have other stuff in core that doesn't meet that criteria. Grahame: there's a grandfathering thing. Perhaps we take some of it out. One we have the criteria we can apply it. Do we allow anything in core in terms of extensions/profiles that does not meet the criteria of mandatory use? Grahame: It makes sense to have stuff in the spec that aids usability. Genetic history is a good example; don't know where else it would go.
- QA: David reports it is approximately half completed. Review period is supposed to end on Sunday.
- IG risk mitigation
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Sandy here to update. Will send out email to track leads for any unsubmitted proposals. Need to review pre-connectathon survey. Have reached out to Mary Ann for a numbers check.
- SGB –
- Hasn't met
- MnM –
- Has been doing harmonization
- FMG Liaisons –
- Hans: Still working with OO to get things finalized. Will report back at upcoming meeting.
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Adjourned at 4:57 pm Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
