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

Difference between revisions of "2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
========================================================================--->
 
========================================================================--->
 
| 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: ''' <br/>https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637
−
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2016-05-25'''<br/> '''Time: 10:00 AM Eastern'''
+
| colspan="2" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date: 2016-06-01'''<br/> '''Time: 10:00 AM Eastern'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
 
| colspan="1" align="right"|'''Facilitator'''
Line 39: Line 39:
 
| || Calvin Beebe
 
| || Calvin Beebe
 
|-
 
|-
−
| x||Lorraine Constable
+
|x ||Lorraine Constable
 
|-
 
|-
−
||| Russ Hamm
+
|x|| Russ Hamm
 
|-
 
|-
 
|x || Tony Julian  
 
|x || Tony Julian  
Line 47: Line 47:
 
|x|| Paul Knapp
 
|x|| Paul Knapp
 
|-
 
|-
−
| x|| Austin Kreisler
+
|x || Austin Kreisler
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || Wayne Kubick
+
| x|| Wayne Kubick
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || Mary Kay McDaniel
 
| || Mary Kay McDaniel
Line 56: Line 56:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|x || Rik Smithies
 
|x || Rik Smithies
 +
|-
 +
|x || Rob McClure
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|colspan="4" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|
 
|-
 
|-
−
|colspan="4" style="font-style:italic; color:green;" |chair +4''
+
|colspan="4" style="font-style:italic; color:green;" |''no quorum definition''
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 73: Line 75:
 
========================================================--->
 
========================================================--->
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
−
*Review minutes
 
−
**[[2016-05-08_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 
−
**[[2016-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 
−
 
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
 +
*Review minutes of [[2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call]]
 +
*Homework
 +
**Forward risks to the group for consideration
 
*Action Items
 
*Action Items
−
**Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
+
**Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
−
**Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
+
*Discussion Topics
−
*Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
+
**HTA Followup Discussion
 +
**Risk assessment
 
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 +
***Need to invite Grahame to discuss
 
**CDA Product Family Formation
 
**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])
 
**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
 
**Role of Steering Divisions
 
**FHIR Governance Board
 
**FHIR Governance Board
 +
**Balloting standards which are cross-product family
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
−
*Review minutes
 
−
**[[2016-05-08_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 
−
**[[2016-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda]]
 
−
 
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
 +
*Review minutes of [[2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call]]
 +
**Approved via general consent
 +
*Homework
 +
**Forward risks to the group for consideration
 
*Action Items
 
*Action Items
−
**Paul to complete WGM effectiveness survey (no longer being done)
+
**Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
−
***PIC made the decision to suspend the survey.  
+
*Discussion Topics
−
**Anne to send call details to HTA for 6/1 (complete)
+
**HTA Followup Discussion
−
***Anne forwarded materials from HTA to listserve
+
***Rob McClure here to represent. Heather sent two documents for SGB review. Currency of Value Set Content document was the result of discussions from SNOMED. They had an expectation that any value sets that included SNOMED concepts would be reviewed every five years. HL7 needs to gain experience with maintenance of active standards and any impact on older standards. Perhaps SGB can weigh in on how that is managed. There is a risk that we have standards in the marketplace that include terminologies that are no longer available or supported; to manage that risk we add in the precept of review processes. Discussion over expansion sets - have to change value set definitions to reflect current version. Paul: We will take these documents and pull the requirements from them and coordinate with HTA to make sure we've captured them appropriately. Rob: Another unclear implication is what is the right expected behavior of systems when you're updating value sets but want to retrieve older data? Paul: not sure that is something for SGB to do; SGB can say that it needs to be done but not how to do it. May be different across families. Rob: Precept that needs to be followed should be the same no matter what. Probably Vocab should figure out the how. Paul: Might actually be something that we have ARB look at also.
−
*Discussion Topics (carried over from WGM)
+
***Looked at licensing guidance from HTA. When you publish, you must communicate to implementers that they must satisfy the license requirements that are put out by the terminology authority for them. Paul: There are many risks involved here. Rob: Great implication on implementers. Ken: All we need to do is ask for sample codes to explain how it should be applied within the standard as examples and let them know they can get them through license in the appropriate fashion. Rob: Disagrees that it would be successful. Paul: We should have a precept that requires that the process has been gone through. Rob: We should expect that any WGs that want to use the terminology standard have access to the full standard. Ken: Goal should be that there should be example structures to help people manage the process. SNOMED should provide training. Wayne: IHTSDO has provided us with this already.  Rob: This document focuses only on SNOMED. The IHTSDO arrangement helps clarify for implementers what their expectations are in terms of what they should do when they decide to implement a standard. Simple solution would be if you're going to be using a code system in the context of creating a standard, you should have access to that system and have HL7 support that.  At the implementation phase, what guidance do we give the WGs to make sure the implementation is as easy as possible? IHTSDO has taken steps to enable this through licensing. Ken: we should give WGs direction that they reach out to HTA if there is no licensing agreement. We don't want every WG managing the license agreement. Wayne: a possible short term thing would be to put a disclaimer statement in every published item regarding licensing - making it clear to people that licensing is their responsibility when they implement a standard. We can post the policies with a permalink. Paul: The precept to manage the risk is that in each of our publications that a family has a boiler plate which, in a consistent manner, calls out those code sets that require licensing.  
 +
***Paul: how do jurisdictional regulations intersect with this? Rob: We're saying that the five year review is a minimum based on HL7's expectations. In the context of the use of the standard, if a regulatory body needs to see something more frequent, they would need to come and participate in the WG and dictate the cycle. It is also a binding issue; work ongoing on applying in a product family independent fashion.
 +
****ACTION: Paul and Ken to take document and identify risks and issues
 +
****ACTION: Anne to pull out TRAC spreadsheet and distribute; all to review
 +
**Risk assessment
 
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 
**Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
 
***Need to invite Grahame to discuss
 
***Need to invite Grahame to discuss
Line 107: Line 115:
 
**FHIR Governance Board
 
**FHIR Governance Board
 
**Balloting standards which are cross-product family
 
**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
 
  
  
Line 143: Line 146:
  
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|width="100%" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
−
*[[2016-06-01 SGB Conference Call]]
+
*[[20160608 SGB Conference Call]]
  
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
© 2016 Health Level Seven® Internatio
+
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved
 +
 
 +
 
 +
1. Work Groups will do their own governance if there is nothing else available.
 +
2. There will be inconsistent governance across all products, therefore giving an inconsistent feel of products within HL7 across product families.
 +
3. Product lines will create unrelated governance to their product family(ies) that they are adopting their lines on and giving external people unclear understanding of HL7 Governance.
 +
4. Without governance, people will  do whatever seems to be right for them at the time they are working on a project.

Revision as of 20:55, 3 June 2016

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637

Date: 2016-06-01
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
x Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Rob McClure
no quorum definition

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review minutes of 2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Homework
    • Forward risks to the group for consideration
  • Action Items
    • Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
  • Discussion Topics
    • HTA Followup Discussion
    • Risk assessment
    • 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

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Review minutes of 2016-05-25_SGB_Conference_Call
    • Approved via general consent
  • Homework
    • Forward risks to the group for consideration
  • Action Items
    • Lorraine to send risk and precept material that Ron put together to the group
  • Discussion Topics
    • HTA Followup Discussion
      • Rob McClure here to represent. Heather sent two documents for SGB review. Currency of Value Set Content document was the result of discussions from SNOMED. They had an expectation that any value sets that included SNOMED concepts would be reviewed every five years. HL7 needs to gain experience with maintenance of active standards and any impact on older standards. Perhaps SGB can weigh in on how that is managed. There is a risk that we have standards in the marketplace that include terminologies that are no longer available or supported; to manage that risk we add in the precept of review processes. Discussion over expansion sets - have to change value set definitions to reflect current version. Paul: We will take these documents and pull the requirements from them and coordinate with HTA to make sure we've captured them appropriately. Rob: Another unclear implication is what is the right expected behavior of systems when you're updating value sets but want to retrieve older data? Paul: not sure that is something for SGB to do; SGB can say that it needs to be done but not how to do it. May be different across families. Rob: Precept that needs to be followed should be the same no matter what. Probably Vocab should figure out the how. Paul: Might actually be something that we have ARB look at also.
      • Looked at licensing guidance from HTA. When you publish, you must communicate to implementers that they must satisfy the license requirements that are put out by the terminology authority for them. Paul: There are many risks involved here. Rob: Great implication on implementers. Ken: All we need to do is ask for sample codes to explain how it should be applied within the standard as examples and let them know they can get them through license in the appropriate fashion. Rob: Disagrees that it would be successful. Paul: We should have a precept that requires that the process has been gone through. Rob: We should expect that any WGs that want to use the terminology standard have access to the full standard. Ken: Goal should be that there should be example structures to help people manage the process. SNOMED should provide training. Wayne: IHTSDO has provided us with this already. Rob: This document focuses only on SNOMED. The IHTSDO arrangement helps clarify for implementers what their expectations are in terms of what they should do when they decide to implement a standard. Simple solution would be if you're going to be using a code system in the context of creating a standard, you should have access to that system and have HL7 support that. At the implementation phase, what guidance do we give the WGs to make sure the implementation is as easy as possible? IHTSDO has taken steps to enable this through licensing. Ken: we should give WGs direction that they reach out to HTA if there is no licensing agreement. We don't want every WG managing the license agreement. Wayne: a possible short term thing would be to put a disclaimer statement in every published item regarding licensing - making it clear to people that licensing is their responsibility when they implement a standard. We can post the policies with a permalink. Paul: The precept to manage the risk is that in each of our publications that a family has a boiler plate which, in a consistent manner, calls out those code sets that require licensing.
      • Paul: how do jurisdictional regulations intersect with this? Rob: We're saying that the five year review is a minimum based on HL7's expectations. In the context of the use of the standard, if a regulatory body needs to see something more frequent, they would need to come and participate in the WG and dictate the cycle. It is also a binding issue; work ongoing on applying in a product family independent fashion.
        • ACTION: Paul and Ken to take document and identify risks and issues
        • ACTION: Anne to pull out TRAC spreadsheet and distribute; all to review
    • Risk assessment
    • 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


Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved


1. Work Groups will do their own governance if there is nothing else available. 2. There will be inconsistent governance across all products, therefore giving an inconsistent feel of products within HL7 across product families. 3. Product lines will create unrelated governance to their product family(ies) that they are adopting their lines on and giving external people unclear understanding of HL7 Governance. 4. Without governance, people will do whatever seems to be right for them at the time they are working on a project.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-06-01_SGB_Conference_Call&oldid=121109"