This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-04-05 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2016-04-05 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Calvin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| x | Russ Hamm | ||
| x | Tony Julian | ||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| Mary Kay McDaniel | |||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| x | Rik Smithies | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Review minutes from 2017-03-29_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Anne to send out updated substantive change definition for review and comment due by 2017-04-18
- ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
- Lorraine to send substnative change PSS to Publishing and PIC
- Anne to add to TSC agenda - SGB recommends to TSC that process changes which affect standards development should go to SGB for consideration and recommendation back to TSC
- Anne to reply to Richard re: Privacy Cookbook and ask where you've used SUR, do you intend for that to mean specification under review or specification under development, because SGB sees those as two different activities.
- Calvin will make updates to ballot level transition and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to TSC call.
- Wayne will request that FMG provide documentation to support the requested variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- Discussion Topics
- CDA MG Mission and Charter Review and Approval
- Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
- PSS approval process: managing unresponsive cosponsors
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- SGB provider role recruitment - look at descriptions for FMG/FGB
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Mixed ballot content issue
- Parking Lot
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Vocabulary precepts
- General precepts
- Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
- Levels of standards
- Separation of concerns
- Ownership of content
- ISM
- Ownership of content
- Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Review minutes from 2017-03-29_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Austin
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action Items
- Anne to send out updated substantive change definition for review and comment due by 2017-04-18
- Reviewed responses thus far from Lloyd and Heather Grain. Lloyd states that it doesn't address the notion of the behavior of a recipient or a sender.
- Lloyd suggests: "Examples of HL7 substantive changes are: altering the information content of an instance or the interpretation of its content; or altering the required or permitted behavior of systems governed by the specification"
- Updated definition to read:
- Any change that meets the ANSI substantive change definition (see below) is to be considered an HL7 substantive change. Examples of HL7 substantive changes are: altering the information content of an instance, the interpretation of its content, or the behaviors defined by the specification.
- ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
- Lorraine moved PSSS to new template and forwarded to Publishing and PIC, but Liora is out through April. Checked with Dave re: the process; Dave said to send it to TSC noting that other cosponsors are in process.
- Anne to add to TSC agenda - SGB recommends to TSC that process changes which affect standards development should go to SGB for consideration and recommendation back to TSC
- On the agenda for next week. Add "SGB does not see a need for changes to the Project Services "Introducing New Processes" document."
- Anne to reply to Richard re: Privacy Cookbook and ask where you've used SUR, do you intend for that to mean specification under review or specification under development, because SGB sees those as two different activities.
- Richard responded that " The privacy assessment can be done at any time (just as the security risk assessment); that is up to the discretion of the WG. Usually, the sooner an assessment is done, the better, but the assessment is conducted to “identify privacy impacts and the release of a patient’s sensitive information, etc.’’ The individual WGs would know best when to conduct the assessment."
- ACTION: Anne to invite new contact for the project (Mike Davis) to upcoming call.
- Richard responded that " The privacy assessment can be done at any time (just as the security risk assessment); that is up to the discretion of the WG. Usually, the sooner an assessment is done, the better, but the assessment is conducted to “identify privacy impacts and the release of a patient’s sensitive information, etc.’’ The individual WGs would know best when to conduct the assessment."
- Calvin will make updates to ballot level transition and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to TSC call.
- Complete. TSC is still pending review.
- Wayne will request that FMG provide documentation to support the requested variance from normal balloting/publishing process
- Grahame is preparing something. Add for next week.
- Anne to send out updated substantive change definition for review and comment due by 2017-04-18
- Discussion Topics
- Paul notes topic of publication requests without materials. Lorraine notes TSC does not review/approve ballot material; Paul notes that we do look to see that they've published reconciliation packages. Lorraine: We verify that they've followed process but we don't verify content. Paul: In the case of publication, we've recently approved publication of things that don't exist yet. Lorraine: Up until FHIR, we had not allowed publication without material. Our behavior changed with FHIR. Should SGB provide a recommendation to TSC on this? Anne notes there will be a motion on Monday's TSC call to require a minimum 72-hour review (e-vote) period. Should not be approving things that don't exist yet. Discussion if this review period is in variance with TSC DMP - will discuss at TSC.
- CDA MG Mission and Charter Review and Approval
- Group reviews. Discussion over where these MGs should report up to - TSC or SGB.
- ACTION: Anne to put on Saturday's TSC's agenda essentialism topic a discussion of consideration of where management groups report to.
- ACTION: Add to next week
- Group reviews. Discussion over where these MGs should report up to - TSC or SGB.
- Continued discussion on drafting an additional type of ballot comment disposition
- Add to next week
- PSS approval process: managing unresponsive cosponsors
- Add to next week
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- Add to next week
- SGB provider role recruitment - look at descriptions for FMG/FGB
- Add to next week
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Add to next week
- Mixed ballot content issue
- Add to next week
- Adjourned at 11:05 AM Eastern
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
