This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-09-19 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2018-09-19 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Lorraine | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| Calvin Beebe | |||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Russ Hamm | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| Paul Knapp | |||
| Ewout Kramer | |||
| Austin Kreisler | |||
| Wayne Kubick | |||
| Thom Kuhn | |||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| Rik Smithies | |||
| Sandy Stuart | |||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-09-05_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
- Paul to draft precept on artifact governance
- Send survey for methodology cochairs regarding desire for model-driven approach where a RDAM sits at the top
- Calvin to draft plan for FHIR re: comment vs. ballot process. Identify the risks. Define continuous maintenance. Address review process. Address what activities are allowable/not allowable during the review process. Craft precepts to address high priority risks.
- Calvin to also review the organizational issue from the board perspective. How do we position this process in the marketplace? Need to look at business and membership impacts.
- Paul to contact Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
- SGB Communication Plan
- Large architectures coming in:
- Evaluate PSS process to potentially provide earlier visibility
- How should a product family-type project be documented and reviewed - is PSS enough?
- When it affects cross-organizational methodology, PFMGs need to have a review/say - potential precept
- Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- Parking Lot
- Mapping coordination
- Add link to Confluence page from ARB page
- Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
- Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
- Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
- Review Mission and Charter
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Technical Alignments Between Product Families
- How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
- Precept on bringing in large projects
- Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
- Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
- BAM guidance on process for product adoption
- Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Ownership of content
- What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?
- Mapping coordination
Minutes
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
