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

Difference between revisions of "20170614 inm agenda"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
#**Should be  
 
#**Should be  
 
#***A message of consequence SHOULD have one and only one receiver specified
 
#***A message of consequence SHOULD have one and only one receiver specified
 +
#*Should segments be retained in deprecated chapters
 +
#**MOTION to accept O&O offer to take over ownership of specific segments in Chapters 10 and 17 and deprecate the rest of the chapter. Motion from Tony, Seconded by Pete. Motion carries 3-0-0.
 
#*Chapter 2 '''final''' ballot reconciliation
 
#*Chapter 2 '''final''' ballot reconciliation
 
#**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/v2-ballot-pkg/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2FV2.9_ballot_docs%2FV29_CH02_Control.docx V2.9 Chapter 2 with edits]
 
#**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/v2-ballot-pkg/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2FV2.9_ballot_docs%2FV29_CH02_Control.docx V2.9 Chapter 2 with edits]

Latest revision as of 15:54, 14 June 2017

Agenda

  1. Management
  2. Methodology
    • FHIR 10619
      • Commenter suggests that
        • A message of consequence SHOULD have at least one receiver specified
      • Should be
        • A message of consequence SHOULD have one and only one receiver specified
    • Should segments be retained in deprecated chapters
      • MOTION to accept O&O offer to take over ownership of specific segments in Chapters 10 and 17 and deprecate the rest of the chapter. Motion from Tony, Seconded by Pete. Motion carries 3-0-0.
    • Chapter 2 final ballot reconciliation
  3. Other business and planning
    • V2 Substantivity definition