2018-09-30 SGB WGM Agenda

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: Frederick		Date: 2018-09-30 Time: 11:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Lorraine	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee	Name
x	Calvin Beebe
x	Lorraine Constable
x	Russ Hamm
x	Tony Julian
x	Paul Knapp
	Ewout Kramer
x	Austin Kreisler
x	Wayne Kubick
x	Thom Kuhn
	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
	Sandy Stuart
x	Guests: Patrick Lloyd, Ron Parker, Rachel Forester, Mary Kay McDaniel
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

• Agenda review
  • Joint with ARB
• Discussion Topics
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Step 1 of the BAM
    • Survey results on overarching methodology
    • Vocabulary precepts
  • Items from TSC meeting:
    • Precept for development: Management groups need to establish their ballot deadlines and communicate them clearly as well to their product family
    • SGB to look at the US Realm vs. Universal issue
    • May need precepts around EST and Publishing
• 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?

Minutes

• Roll call
  • Guests: Ron Parker, Rachel Forester, Patrick Lloyd, Mary Kay McDaniel
• Agenda review
  • Joint with ARB
• Discussion Topics
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Step 1 of the BAM
      • Reviewed the HL7 appropriate projects page which describes how to apply step 1.
    • Survey results on overarching methodology
      • Only one answer from Lloyd, who was not in favor of an overarching methodology. Recommended that we should not go forward with the RDAM project.
      • Austin: RDAM was proposing methodology over all of our standards. Lorraine notes it mushed CIMI and FHIM together, but we have not adopted the FHIM, and CIMI is supposed to be an international model. Mixed opinions over the utility of an ubermodel. Do we want to do anything about the checklist and summary for HL7 appropriate projects? Reviewed product definition and approval section and when a concept review is required. Challenge is that we applied the process while the project was out for approval, but they’d been working on it for two years. It would be much easier to apply at the beginning; the question is, how do you find the projects before they get too far? Wayne: We have to be careful to explain and provide examples. Lorraine: There’s the HSPC coming forward as well as several others that we could look at to determine which bucket they fall into. Ron: This is logical due diligence that offers the opportunity to clarify intent and goals, and allowing the organization to say this has too large a scope of effect. Lorraine: This definition and summary was in TSC e-vote and it passed. Now the question is how we roll it out? Austin: That is a TSC activity.
        • ACTION: Anne to add rollout process to upcoming TSC agenda
      • Lorraine: It could be added to the online PSS process. There is a box for new product but it isn’t well understood. Discussion over triggers. Lorraine: One symptom is when we’ve got more than four cosponsors. Austin: The original PSS would’ve triggered this. Thom: This was triggered by an article in the newsletter. Austin: One trigger could be that it’s spanning across multiple WGs, they state they have a product not on the form or someone says we need to take a look at something that hasn’t surfaced yet. Lorraine: US Realm or Steering Division review could also trigger. Austin: We’re rolling out a rule that PSSs for balloting must be rolled out earlier. If you want to ballot in September, you have to be TSC-approved a month before the May meeting. Projects will have to announce themselves much sooner. Lorraine: There’s a listener page on Confluence that will make projects much more visible.

• • • Vocabulary precepts
      • Originally came from Ted re: UTG. May have to schedule him on one of our calls as he won’t be able to attend on Friday. Russ will check with Ted to see if someone else can attend to raise the issues.
  • Items from TSC meeting:
    • Paul raises emergency balloting from FHIR. Will be discussed throughout the day and at TSC this evening. Austin: These are substantive changes that may result out of the ballot. Lorraine: Why would we rush these things? Paul: The challenge is that we had a style that we took them through ballot, and once they stopped moving we would publish them. We did not put a stake in the ground on the date. But now we are going towards a style that we must publish by a certain date. Once you do that, in the even that you need to re-ballot, it is hard to meet the arbitrary goal. We have to find some way to deal with it. If we go to continuous maintenance it will be the same thing. Ron: Levels of maturity provided a premise to frame the release of the standards and versioning. Paul: Reality will always express itself no matter what we think about it. Austin: There are a core set of resources that have to go with the package, and it’s been revealed that it’s not quite ready. Lorraine: So there are four ballots; if one fails, the others could conceivably go. The change we’ve identified so far – what is it under? Austin: Terminology, and also something relevant to Patient, and there may be something on Observation. Lorraine: The comment on Observation has been rejected before. Austin: A lot may happen this week during the reconciliation processes. Paul: We can provide either through SGB or TSC or both guidance on how we address those things. When you have looming dates or impacts, that can drive decisions independent on what is the right thing to do. We get the best quality products by relieving some of that distracting pressure. If one thing is going to ballot, the hood is up on that thing and it should relieve pressure on other things. Lorraine: It means the reconciliation activities have to be done on time. Paul: They’ve announced that reconciliation activities must be done at the end of next week, which is unusually aggressive. Lorraine: That’s not enough time for committees to discuss serious issues. Paul: Short time frame was an issue but we still need to get things as tidy as we can. Lorraine: Particularly for the normative resources. We said management groups could set their own timelines within the schedule, but are there limits on that? Paul: This goes beyond facilitating the publication cycle. Austin: This will be discussed tonight at TSC. Any input from SGB? Lorraine: The organization needs to have the appropriate timd to provide thoughtful due diligence on reconciliation. Calvin: Should we suggest that the package sizes that we’re taking through need to be made smaller down to the resource level? Paul: They are down at that level already. See the value in getting certain resources to normative state, and it makes sense that in the face of breaking changes, we should take the opportunity to make them as right as we can. Lorraine; Tight timelines drive tendency on content developers to shut down discussion. Discussion over timeline for reballoting. We could still get the normative stuff published by the end of the year. Issue is not with the STU portion. Austin: Balloting would be restricted to those packages that had substantive changes, and would be restricted to the substantive changes. Ron: In order to pull it off there must be a realistic division of labor. Lorraine: When we have FMG look at planning with each of the WGs they’ll have to look at how realistic it is. Paul: From HQ perspective, another ballot would be closing as another opens. Austin: Lynn says it’s possible. Lorraine: The real other option is to do a January ballot. Paul: We could do that and publish at the end of February: Austin: So what are ARB and SGB’s recommendation to TSC on this issue? Lorraine: My question would be to look at what’s reasonable to expect from committees in terms of timelines? FMG will need feedback from the WGs on if timelines are appropriate. TSC needs to make sure that appropriate process is being followed while people are hurrying. Thom: Sometimes the best thing to do is let things simmer awhile to come to the best conclusion and this doesn’t allow that. Paul: We may have to help external organizations understand any alternate timelines. Calvin: It’s the balance between quality and speed. Ron: Quality should also equal sustainability.
    • Precept for development: Management groups need to articulate their content deadlines, reconciliation deadlines, and publication deadlines and communicate them clearly as well to their product family. Deadlines need to be reasonable.
      • Are there any limits on the establishment of deadlines? Austin: WGs have to be able to successfully meet them.
    • SGB to look at the US Realm vs. Universal issue
      • Austin: The issue is that there is fuzziness between US Realm vs. universal. A lot of groups submitting a PSs don’t understand the difference. What triggers something to be one of the other. PSSs that ought to be US Realm are often marked Universal. Thom notes there is a lot of pressure to keep it universal. Ken noted there are three states: US Realm stuff that is definitely US realm because of regulation, etc.; stuff that is definitely universal in its development and/or implementation; then there’s the stuff that is universal wannabe that only has US people working on it. Thom: Sometimes they are struggling mightily to find universal participation. Lorraine: Another category is where they think it’s universal but they’re creating dependences by using US Realm goods. CIMI is officially universal but they’re using SOLOR, etc. Austin: US acronyms should definitely be a trigger. Lorraine: Sometimes in US Realm we look at ways to push it to universal. Ron: So then if you say it’s universal, what does that mean? Paul; It needs to have had universal input, review, and participation. Must be free of jurisdictional dependencies. Reviewed PSS instructions. Missing “free of jurisdictional dependences.”

Could add “lack of individual realm-specific dependences.”

• • • • • ACTION: Recommend to Project Services to update the section
      • Lorraine notes that some groups are marking both; Universal with US Realm exemplars. Wayne: We should split up the US Realm items that have potential for universal participation. Should have an additional flag to indicate it’s currently US Realm but may be universal in the future.
        • ACTION: Ask US Realm to consider recommending to Project Services another realm category for items that are US Realm but intended to be universal in the future.
    • Thom: needs to be easier to find a way to engage international interest. Lorraine: That’s a really challenging thing now. Rik: Affiliates tend to work in their own little world.
    • May need precepts around EST and Publishing
      • Carry forward
• Reviewed Friday’s agenda
• Adjourned at 12:25 PM

Meeting Outcomes

Actions © 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserve