20150119 FGB WGM Minutes

HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: Frio| |Date: 2015-01-19 Time: 9:00 am U.S. Central
Facilitator:		Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer

Quorum = Chair plus 2				yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO		Members
	Woody Beeler		Lorraine Constable		Grahame Grieve		David Hay (FMG)
	Dave Shaver		Ewout Kramer		Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)		Ron Parker
	John Quinn
observers/guests			Austin Kreisler
			Anne Wizauer, scribe

Agenda

• Roll call -
• Agenda Review
• Approve minutes of 20141208 FGB concall
• Action Item review:
• FMG update -
• Methodology update-
• Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
• Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
  1. Conformity Assessment

Minutes

• Convened at 10:00 am Central time
• Lorraine, Ewout, Lloyd, many guests
• Ewout acting chair. Went around the room with introductions.
• Action item: Dave to reach out to Katherine – haven’t heard back from her and may need to think of someone else
• FMG update: assessing WG readiness for ballot. Caught up on reviewing resource proposals – there are a few edits. Proposals backed up the queue? Not more than 10 or 12 – a couple of calls’ worth. Do the WGs have a sense of how to put them together so they’re cleaner? Yes, although some of the newer need more assistance. Precepts and risks may need to be reassessed after yesterday’s TSC meeting.Question from guest regarding Argonaut: could you clarify the relationship? Hasn’t been discussed in FGB yet so that information will be forthcoming.
• Who we are/role of the FGB/membership:

FHIR was one of the first attempts to apply SAIF governance precepts. Three years ago we set up FMG and FGB who were appointed by CTO on the advice of the TSC with a broad sense of input. This is a closed group from voting perspective but open in terms of minutes, skype chats, etc. Questions arose yesterday regarding FGB being involved in tooling decisions. Precepts that are governing that decision will need to be evaluated. Questions regarding governance vs. management.

• Argonaut:

General concept is providing assistance in moving the material forward in order to have material ready for ballot in May – specifically the C-CDA mapping piece. WGs will review mappings before DSTU2. Argonaut is funding C-CDA 1.1 mapping to FHIR, and also throwing some funding at Smart on FHIR folks so it can be used by US and others through the security workgroup. Core team and Chuck Jaffe and John Quinn worked on the initiation of the project. Should consider having FGB involved in some of that decision making for future projects. Timing was difficult for this particular project. Begs the question again – what is the role of FGB? Question/statement from observer (Mike Henderson): Engagement of open source community has not been engaged in this effort and it leaves a significant gap. It is essential that the open source community be engaged in Argonaut, particular in respect to the dubious operation of Argonaut thus far in light of HL7’s very clear governance principles. Lloyd: My perspective is that it was a one-time, short-term boost targeted to a very specific set of content aimed at increasing the possibility of May ballot. There is a broader need to provide a mechanism for the community at large to provide resources to FHIR and that might be money, people, other kinds of things to move FHIR forward and the process by which that can happen needs to be completely open and transparent, ensuring that FHIR is not and is not seen to be a place where you pay to drive what occurs/where anyone who wants to get their name in lights has the opportunity to do that. This is well-understood by the core team and FMG is working to ensure that occurs. (Ken McCaslin joins) Argonaut caused no change in direction, simply took some weight off the WGs. Open source community is essential to FHIR. Point is well-taken. Mike Henderson: We will be looking for more information on how to get involved. We recognize the speed at which things have to move; open source community has to move quickly as well. Ewout: We have a similar concern in the international community. I recognize what you’re saying – we are all monitoring the long-term effects of Argonaut. There are dangers to speed, such as you mentioned and also the impression that this standard is getting less international. Mike Henderson: Is Argonaut unprecedented in HL7? Ken: It’s not unprecedented, but the size is unprecedented.

• Governance: In the BAM we’ve been looking at governance precepts. Governance establishes rules that control decision-making. Does not dictate when or how to make a decision. Discussion regarding how this and the definition of what the governance board is responsible in the BAM section 6 fits how we view the relationship between FGB and FMG. Lloyd suggests the BAM should recognize there are different degrees and speed of change. FMG currently operates in a space where there are no defined guidelines for changes going to FGB. Ken disagrees; the governance board is not driving the GOM, and FMG was making changes that are known and understood and clearly defined in the GOM. Lloyd counters that the GOM was and will be followed; Ken still sees deviation from the process. Lloyd agrees there is an issue but it wasn’t an issue around the GOM. Ken states governance is not a single point in any organization and has to do with processes. GOM can’t drive everything; ballot desktop drives governance of behaviors of participants. Co-chairs and balloters expect a certain process. All of these things are part of the governance model. Lloyd states that the FMG does not currently have, from a documentation or process perspective, clearly defined methods of making on the fly changes – what can it decide to do on its own and when should other levels be engaged. Ken feels that may be overstructured. FMG must simply follow the established governance precepts like the other WGs. Lorraine states that FMG members can help us determine what issues should be escalated. Reviewed management section of bam section 6. Lloyd feels this is narrow and is focused on publishing. Lorraine agrees there is a gap there and this is meant to be general. Lloyd states that FHIR’s main responsibility is to the implementer community, getting implementations out there and successful. Ken: do the drivers of products have to manage everything from soup to nuts? Lloyd: product line is only as successful as its adoption by the consumers, which needs to be considered throughout the entire process from conception to publishing. Product line is where you span all of the groups and say what is the big picture and how do we coordinate. Ken feels that there are some pieces that we want all of our products to have the same look and feel in such areas of education, marketing. Lloyd says there has to be some degree of cross-talk in order to be successful between product line and education in order to meet needs of implementers. Ken agrees that there is a handshake that goes on – it’s not dictated to education, and we work within their model. There are places within the organization that FHIR doesn’t need to govern or manage - FHIR must fit within the existing governance model. Lloyd’s understanding is that anything related to FHIR, from conceptualization through to implementation questions falls within the purview of FMG and FGB, subject to organizational rules; question – is that same sense of end to end product line reflected or not? Lorraine – we’ve only dealt with two phases of the 12 phases. The BAM would have something to say about that but we aren’t there yet – FHIR is somewhat of a guinea pig. Next steps on this discussion: FMG and FGB should have joint time with Ken and John after FGB has had some more discussion in order to develop deeper understanding on how we’d like to see things work. Will schedule some calls after WGM. First call after meeting we should talk about this in more detail and then reach out to TSC. Anne to help with scheduling. Lorraine clarifies difference between product line and family. Line is from viewpoint of customer. Family is the producer’s perspective.
• Membership: We need to replace Ron’s position – ArB representative. We need a provider position. Might add a third chair or an acting chair in Woody’s absence. Solicitation for nominations should be sent out. Put acting chair issue on next call. FGB and Arb should just discuss that position, so the two we’ll solicit are Ron’s role and the clinician role.
• Methodology update: Once FHIR Core WG exists we can go back to trying to flesh out methodology rules and guidelines. MnM and FHIR Core responsibilities: premise is that MnM methodology focuses on rules around creating artifacts and quality guidelines for those. FHIR Core is how does FHIR operate?

Core place for some of the infrastructure resources, operating on the basis that all of the domain resources continue to be owned by and work is done in the respective domains.

• Adjouned at 10:31 a.m. central

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Further discussion on FMG/FGB governance processes Joint call with FGB/FMG/TSC Add third chair or acting chair Replacement for Ron plus clinician role

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 20150126 FGB concall

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.