This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20150311 FMG concall"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
*Austin here to discuss process for handling comments on the FHIR Ballot process review. Option 1: we don’t say anything until review period closes and provide feedback afterwards; 2) FMG goes through and provides comments on weekly calls; 3) individual FMG members can provide feedback and then we would vote at the end on whether or not we are comfortable with those dispositions. Are there rules on how this must work? Austin states we treat it as if it’s a ballot reconciliation. Austin suggests if we see something that could be a formidable issue, then we contact them and start a discussion. Lloyd proposes we monitor, come up with candidate dispositions, and then formally vote at the close of the review period. Paul wonders when the requirements for the gforge site will be brought forward or when the analysis of gforge’s capability to handle this will occur? What testing or assurance do we have that it can handle it. Austin states that EST is a cosponsor of the project so they can monitor gforge throughout this pilot. In Austin’s discussion with EST, they signed up for the piece Paul is bringing up – it is their principal involvement as well as review from a security perspective of the tools that are going to be used for migrating content from spreadsheets to gforge and back. Lloyd mentions there are spreadsheet fallbacks for the WG meeting. | *Austin here to discuss process for handling comments on the FHIR Ballot process review. Option 1: we don’t say anything until review period closes and provide feedback afterwards; 2) FMG goes through and provides comments on weekly calls; 3) individual FMG members can provide feedback and then we would vote at the end on whether or not we are comfortable with those dispositions. Are there rules on how this must work? Austin states we treat it as if it’s a ballot reconciliation. Austin suggests if we see something that could be a formidable issue, then we contact them and start a discussion. Lloyd proposes we monitor, come up with candidate dispositions, and then formally vote at the close of the review period. Paul wonders when the requirements for the gforge site will be brought forward or when the analysis of gforge’s capability to handle this will occur? What testing or assurance do we have that it can handle it. Austin states that EST is a cosponsor of the project so they can monitor gforge throughout this pilot. In Austin’s discussion with EST, they signed up for the piece Paul is bringing up – it is their principal involvement as well as review from a security perspective of the tools that are going to be used for migrating content from spreadsheets to gforge and back. Lloyd mentions there are spreadsheet fallbacks for the WG meeting. | ||
*Issue raised that we have too many resources. Paul has found four resources in particular that have a similar purpose to convey actions that are relatively small. They are Reversal, Readjudicate, StatusRequest, and PendedRequest. Paul describes the features of each and what he proposes to rename these combined resources: ProcessRequest. For PendedRequest, what would the target be? Paul responds it would be the insurer. Concerns about collapsing these resources? Lloyd is comfortable with them being squished into ProcessRequest and having a discussion about linking them into Order if it makes sense. Discussion regarding linking them to order will happen offline. Is it appropriate to take four different things and roll them into one in order to decrease the resource count? Hans thinks the number of resources should not be a reason to collapse them. Lloyd’s concern about number has to do with the pattern. Lloyd agrees significant work needs to be done in the space regarding what the rules and guidelines should be. FM drafted a vision of what they thought it should look like but not sure what the resolution should be here. Brian Post wonders if Paul has created the collapsed resource/submitted it into build system? Paul responds no, he has not submitted it into the build system. Discussion over differences between this and Order. Lloyd: Order and OrderResponse resources go poof in a messaging space. Paul: they are RESTful helpers when you don’t have that trigger. Broader issue: on the 23rd, we have said that we’re going to make a decision around whether or not we’re going to ballot. It’s been pointed out that there is not much action on the QA front. Many change requests that haven’t been reviewed. Lots of approved change requests that haven’t yet been actually changed. Several significant issues. What are our criteria for deciding if/when to move to ballot and what kind ballot it should be. Paul asks if Argonaut is on time? Lloyd states that Argonaut is doing security stuff and they are putting some funding into the C-CDA mapping and he doesn’t know where they are at. Josh states C-CDA is on time. Options: 1) we can choose to put a ballot at dstu status with everything we’ve authorized to put in the ballot, 2) we can go to dstu but identify certain resources/profiles as being draft state (and criteria for making that decision), 3) we can say that we’re not ready but we will be in 4-6 weeks and push to do an out of cycle ballot, 4) we can say this content isn’t ready for production yet but we’d like people to look at the progress again through a draft for comment, or 5) we can push and not ballot until September. Lloyd would like everyone to think about those options and what information they’d need to help them choose between those options. Motion to authorize going forward with collapsing resources into ProcessRequest by Paul, second by Brian Post. | *Issue raised that we have too many resources. Paul has found four resources in particular that have a similar purpose to convey actions that are relatively small. They are Reversal, Readjudicate, StatusRequest, and PendedRequest. Paul describes the features of each and what he proposes to rename these combined resources: ProcessRequest. For PendedRequest, what would the target be? Paul responds it would be the insurer. Concerns about collapsing these resources? Lloyd is comfortable with them being squished into ProcessRequest and having a discussion about linking them into Order if it makes sense. Discussion regarding linking them to order will happen offline. Is it appropriate to take four different things and roll them into one in order to decrease the resource count? Hans thinks the number of resources should not be a reason to collapse them. Lloyd’s concern about number has to do with the pattern. Lloyd agrees significant work needs to be done in the space regarding what the rules and guidelines should be. FM drafted a vision of what they thought it should look like but not sure what the resolution should be here. Brian Post wonders if Paul has created the collapsed resource/submitted it into build system? Paul responds no, he has not submitted it into the build system. Discussion over differences between this and Order. Lloyd: Order and OrderResponse resources go poof in a messaging space. Paul: they are RESTful helpers when you don’t have that trigger. Broader issue: on the 23rd, we have said that we’re going to make a decision around whether or not we’re going to ballot. It’s been pointed out that there is not much action on the QA front. Many change requests that haven’t been reviewed. Lots of approved change requests that haven’t yet been actually changed. Several significant issues. What are our criteria for deciding if/when to move to ballot and what kind ballot it should be. Paul asks if Argonaut is on time? Lloyd states that Argonaut is doing security stuff and they are putting some funding into the C-CDA mapping and he doesn’t know where they are at. Josh states C-CDA is on time. Options: 1) we can choose to put a ballot at dstu status with everything we’ve authorized to put in the ballot, 2) we can go to dstu but identify certain resources/profiles as being draft state (and criteria for making that decision), 3) we can say that we’re not ready but we will be in 4-6 weeks and push to do an out of cycle ballot, 4) we can say this content isn’t ready for production yet but we’d like people to look at the progress again through a draft for comment, or 5) we can push and not ballot until September. Lloyd would like everyone to think about those options and what information they’d need to help them choose between those options. Motion to authorize going forward with collapsing resources into ProcessRequest by Paul, second by Brian Post. | ||
| − | *Lloyd out next Wednesday; David will be. | + | *Lloyd out next Wednesday; David will be here. |
*Call adjourned at 5:35 | *Call adjourned at 5:35 | ||
Latest revision as of 20:32, 17 March 2015
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2015-mm-dd Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| 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 | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postelthwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe |
| x | Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | Brian Pech | ||||
| . | |||||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20150304_FMG_concall
- Administrative
- Action items
- Lloyd to take FHIR license changes back to Mark
- Anne to add section in agenda for reconciliation of comments for FHIR Ballot Pilot Process
- Finish Contract resource proposal
- Action items
- 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
- Hans moves to approve amended agenda; Paul seconds.
- Paul moves to accept minutes; Josh seconds. Brian Post abstains.
- FHIR license terms: Lloyd reviews changes that were taken back to HQ. Hans notes that he is aware of another change made since the version Lloyd is displaying. Today we will approve the language displayed here and deal with other changes at a future time. The word “please” in the first bullet of the second bulleted list should not be seen as an indicator that the directive is optional. Discussion over the phrase third party IP reference – may need to be addressed. Motion to approve changes discussed and start process to get it updated on DSTU 1 site by Brian Post – second by Hans. None opposed or abstained. What is the process for technical correction to a DSTU 1? Anne notes that she believes the approval is simply by John Quinn. Grahame says that we haven’t been asked to update the DSTU 1 specifically. Lloyd says he will hold off on making the change if we’ll be given alternate language in the upcoming weeks – we’ll take a motion at that time. Do we have language in the license that allows amendments?
- Austin here to discuss process for handling comments on the FHIR Ballot process review. Option 1: we don’t say anything until review period closes and provide feedback afterwards; 2) FMG goes through and provides comments on weekly calls; 3) individual FMG members can provide feedback and then we would vote at the end on whether or not we are comfortable with those dispositions. Are there rules on how this must work? Austin states we treat it as if it’s a ballot reconciliation. Austin suggests if we see something that could be a formidable issue, then we contact them and start a discussion. Lloyd proposes we monitor, come up with candidate dispositions, and then formally vote at the close of the review period. Paul wonders when the requirements for the gforge site will be brought forward or when the analysis of gforge’s capability to handle this will occur? What testing or assurance do we have that it can handle it. Austin states that EST is a cosponsor of the project so they can monitor gforge throughout this pilot. In Austin’s discussion with EST, they signed up for the piece Paul is bringing up – it is their principal involvement as well as review from a security perspective of the tools that are going to be used for migrating content from spreadsheets to gforge and back. Lloyd mentions there are spreadsheet fallbacks for the WG meeting.
- Issue raised that we have too many resources. Paul has found four resources in particular that have a similar purpose to convey actions that are relatively small. They are Reversal, Readjudicate, StatusRequest, and PendedRequest. Paul describes the features of each and what he proposes to rename these combined resources: ProcessRequest. For PendedRequest, what would the target be? Paul responds it would be the insurer. Concerns about collapsing these resources? Lloyd is comfortable with them being squished into ProcessRequest and having a discussion about linking them into Order if it makes sense. Discussion regarding linking them to order will happen offline. Is it appropriate to take four different things and roll them into one in order to decrease the resource count? Hans thinks the number of resources should not be a reason to collapse them. Lloyd’s concern about number has to do with the pattern. Lloyd agrees significant work needs to be done in the space regarding what the rules and guidelines should be. FM drafted a vision of what they thought it should look like but not sure what the resolution should be here. Brian Post wonders if Paul has created the collapsed resource/submitted it into build system? Paul responds no, he has not submitted it into the build system. Discussion over differences between this and Order. Lloyd: Order and OrderResponse resources go poof in a messaging space. Paul: they are RESTful helpers when you don’t have that trigger. Broader issue: on the 23rd, we have said that we’re going to make a decision around whether or not we’re going to ballot. It’s been pointed out that there is not much action on the QA front. Many change requests that haven’t been reviewed. Lots of approved change requests that haven’t yet been actually changed. Several significant issues. What are our criteria for deciding if/when to move to ballot and what kind ballot it should be. Paul asks if Argonaut is on time? Lloyd states that Argonaut is doing security stuff and they are putting some funding into the C-CDA mapping and he doesn’t know where they are at. Josh states C-CDA is on time. Options: 1) we can choose to put a ballot at dstu status with everything we’ve authorized to put in the ballot, 2) we can go to dstu but identify certain resources/profiles as being draft state (and criteria for making that decision), 3) we can say that we’re not ready but we will be in 4-6 weeks and push to do an out of cycle ballot, 4) we can say this content isn’t ready for production yet but we’d like people to look at the progress again through a draft for comment, or 5) we can push and not ballot until September. Lloyd would like everyone to think about those options and what information they’d need to help them choose between those options. Motion to authorize going forward with collapsing resources into ProcessRequest by Paul, second by Brian Post.
- Lloyd out next Wednesday; David will be here.
- Call adjourned at 5:35
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2015 Health Level Seven® International
