This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20150118 FGB FMG WGM Minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
*Key thing by the end of the week is to communicate what we'll need from people for the next cycle. | *Key thing by the end of the week is to communicate what we'll need from people for the next cycle. | ||
*Q4 on Thursday we'll be defining plans. We can say we're going to proceed with May ballot and the expectation is that all change requests will be applied or deferred and all QA will be done. Perhaps we should decide on Thursday that we shouldn't do it, but it may be too early to decide that we are? In terms of things that we can do: we can say that we're going on existing timelines, on existing timelines with a relaxed scope, that we're pushing to September ballot, or that we'll do an out of cycle ballot. There will be some political issues if we don't hit the May timeline. Change requests, quality criteria are issues we need to address. Lorraine mentions issues regarding WG issues with communication and confusion amongst the WGs. | *Q4 on Thursday we'll be defining plans. We can say we're going to proceed with May ballot and the expectation is that all change requests will be applied or deferred and all QA will be done. Perhaps we should decide on Thursday that we shouldn't do it, but it may be too early to decide that we are? In terms of things that we can do: we can say that we're going on existing timelines, on existing timelines with a relaxed scope, that we're pushing to September ballot, or that we'll do an out of cycle ballot. There will be some political issues if we don't hit the May timeline. Change requests, quality criteria are issues we need to address. Lorraine mentions issues regarding WG issues with communication and confusion amongst the WGs. | ||
| − | *Argonaut: | + | *Argonaut: confusion regarding governance of Argonaut. Need to be able to have some sense for the co-chairs dinner re: what is it, when are things happening, etc. Argonaut is accelerating the mapping for C-CDA, contributing to security. There is a challenge in that those who are doing the mapping are heads down doing the work and aren't engaging with the WGs. Grahame is doing some mapping, Brett, Eric Haas, others. We can make a request to have Grahame let the WGs know who is working on their parts of things. The concerns from a WG perspective are what is it, what do you need from us, is the contractor work happening on time, when and how will coordination occur. Mappings will likely be ready for review in March over the ballot process. WGs should be reviewing the mapping to ensure that it is correct before the ballot process. Change requests have to be raised before the ballot content deadline. Will the WG have bandwidth to do that? They should be given the opportunity anyway. The key component before DSTU2 was confidence that radical changes to the resources after DSTU 2 would not be necessary. Lorraine: we need to come up with a reasonable message to WGs about this. Lloyd: The domain committees will have review opportunity by end of March, then they can submit change requests from March to May. Discussion ensued regarding if this is sufficient and its adherence to HL7 procedures. |
Latest revision as of 19:47, 18 January 2015
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2015-01-18 Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Central | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s):Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | Regrets | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | John Quinn, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne Wizauer, scribe | |
| Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | ||||
| Regrets | Grahame Grieve | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Ewout Kramer | ||
| x | Marten Smits,visitor | x | Rien Wertheim,visitor | x | Mary Kay McDaniel, visitor | ||
| . | . | . | |||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Key ballot issues
- Comment submission process
- Objectives for the week
- Argonaut
- Ballot timelines
Minutes
Called to order at 12:58 pm
- Added two items to agenda: Argonaut and Ballot timelines.
- Went over schedule and objectives for the week.
- Key ballot issues mostly revolved around consistency.
- Comment submissions - difficulty getting them to show up correctly into gforge - missing columns, etc. Will need to get it fixed asap or use the spreadsheet as a backup.
- QA may be an issue for many WGs who haven't had time to look at it due to accelerated work timelines.
- Key thing by the end of the week is to communicate what we'll need from people for the next cycle.
- Q4 on Thursday we'll be defining plans. We can say we're going to proceed with May ballot and the expectation is that all change requests will be applied or deferred and all QA will be done. Perhaps we should decide on Thursday that we shouldn't do it, but it may be too early to decide that we are? In terms of things that we can do: we can say that we're going on existing timelines, on existing timelines with a relaxed scope, that we're pushing to September ballot, or that we'll do an out of cycle ballot. There will be some political issues if we don't hit the May timeline. Change requests, quality criteria are issues we need to address. Lorraine mentions issues regarding WG issues with communication and confusion amongst the WGs.
- Argonaut: confusion regarding governance of Argonaut. Need to be able to have some sense for the co-chairs dinner re: what is it, when are things happening, etc. Argonaut is accelerating the mapping for C-CDA, contributing to security. There is a challenge in that those who are doing the mapping are heads down doing the work and aren't engaging with the WGs. Grahame is doing some mapping, Brett, Eric Haas, others. We can make a request to have Grahame let the WGs know who is working on their parts of things. The concerns from a WG perspective are what is it, what do you need from us, is the contractor work happening on time, when and how will coordination occur. Mappings will likely be ready for review in March over the ballot process. WGs should be reviewing the mapping to ensure that it is correct before the ballot process. Change requests have to be raised before the ballot content deadline. Will the WG have bandwidth to do that? They should be given the opportunity anyway. The key component before DSTU2 was confidence that radical changes to the resources after DSTU 2 would not be necessary. Lorraine: we need to come up with a reasonable message to WGs about this. Lloyd: The domain committees will have review opportunity by end of March, then they can submit change requests from March to May. Discussion ensued regarding if this is sufficient and its adherence to HL7 procedures.
