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

20150916 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:31, 16 September 2015 by Annewiz (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597
(voice and screen)

Date: 2015-09-16
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs		 x John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel Regrets John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Calvin Beebe, Rob Hausam

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20150909_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Lloyd to review DSTU 2 QA page for completeness against the QA spreadsheet
      • Lloyd will send out email to WGs reminding them that 1) if they have outstanding warnings, they've got 4 or 5 days left to get those clear or be dropped to draft and 2) look at QA checklist and, if aiming for level 4 or higher, make sure scopes tab is complete. Will also send out appeal to those in production to let us know what resources they are using.
      • Grahame will send out same call on implementers list.
  • Discussion Topics
    • FMM5 calls for inclusion of the artifact in two formal publication release cycles.
      • Does that mean that the content has to have been DSTU in both versions or whether it's ok for it to be draft.
      • Do the cycles need to be consecutive - I.e. can something be in one release, yanked for a release (or dropped to a lower status), then put back for a release and still meet the criterion?
      • Does the normative content have to be what was previously published?
    • Security would like AuditEvent & SecurityEvent to be back in as DSTU (and would like permission to update in 2.1)
    • Security would like to make a substantive change to introduction section to add guidance
    • How to we add the review of profiles against resources by the WGs responsible for those resources into the timeline process
    • Policy around FHIR-related project proposals that go to TSC without FMG approval
    • Will the FMG be an interested party/cosponsor of the ArB project to map FHIR specs to the RIM? Should FIWG be leading the project?
    • Where will the new implementer's channel be located; will it be affiliated with FHIR.org; will it be run by someone separate from HL7 or will HL7 run it?
  • Future Topics
    • What are our criteria for inclusion of content in DSTU 2.1?
    • What are the rules for FMM levels for pages and for profiles/IGs?
    • Given that not all resources will be updating in DSTU 2.1, how do we manage the build environment?
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Agenda: Add FHIR help desk
  • MOTION to approve agenda by Hans; second by Brian Pech
  • VOTE: all in favor
  • MOTION to approve minutes from last week by Hans; second by David
  • VOTE: all in favor
    • Action items
      • Lloyd to review DSTU 2 QA page for completeness against the QA spreadsheet: keep for next week
      • Lloyd will send out email to WGs reminding them that 1) if they have outstanding warnings, they've got 4 or 5 days left to get those clear or be dropped to draft and 2) look at QA checklist and, if aiming for level 4 or higher, make sure scopes tab is complete. Will also send out appeal to those in production to let us know what resources they are using: This has been completed.
      • Grahame will send out same call on implementers list: Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • FMM5 calls for inclusion of the artifact in two formal publication release cycles.
      • Does that mean that the content has to have been DSTU in both versions or whether it's ok for it to be draft? Lloyd's leaning is to say yes, it must have been DSTU for both versions. Question about if there have been substantive changes. Need formal policy describing types of changes that are not a problem, do present a problem, and require a review. General agreement that the two publication releases have to be at level FMM1 (DSTU) or higher
      • Do the cycles need to be consecutive - I.e. can something be in one release, yanked for a release (or dropped to a lower status), then put back for a release and still meet the criterion? If releases aren't consecutive, that the FMG will evaluate whether the count should start over again. If resource is completely revamped, it should start over again; if it's a simple technical issue, then starting over is likely unnecessary.
      • Does the normative content have to be what was previously published?
        • MOTION to accept these edits to the FMM by Hans; second by David.
        • VOTE: all in favor
    • Security would like AuditEvent & SecurityEvent to be back in as DSTU (and would like permission to update in 2.1)
    • Security would like to make a substantive change to introduction section to add guidance. Does not impact on downstream profiles.
      • MOTION to allow AuditEvent and SecurityEvent back to DSTU by Brian Post; David seconds.
      • VOTE: All in favor
      • MOTION by Brian Post to include edits to their resource intro to AuditEvent to provide additional implementation guidance. Second by Brian Pech. Clarification that we won't make the decision on updating 2.1 until we have developed the criteria.
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • Helpdesk issue: HQ put out a contract to have a whole bunch of knowledge-base articles and content done for their helpdesk website. FMG reviewed those articles and were uploaded to the helpdesk. HQ now wants to update the material and supplement with additional material. The proposed list of questions and articles has been emailed to FMG, as well as documents requiring edits. By next week's call, Lloyd would like the edits reviews and approved and a decision on which of the FAQs and articles should get written up for inclusion on the helpdesk site. Target is 15 articles additional and 30 additional FAQs by the end of October. Reviewers should update the spreadsheet with comments.
    • Policy around FHIR-related project proposals that go to TSC without FMG approval
      • This was added due to the ArB project to do some work in the RDF space related to FHIR. Lloyd had expected that the PSS would come to FMG because it was a FHIR-related PSS. Did not come to FMG - went directly to TSC. This will be added to FGB agenda for discussion on Monday 9/21.
      • Question 1: Do we think that FHIR-related PSSs should come to FMG before TSC?
      • Question 2: Should this group's approval be required to go to TSC?
      • David suggests yes to the first question and no to the second. Uncomfortable with being able to veto projects. Calvin asks if the work they were working on was going to end up in FHIR publication process - if so, then there should be FHIR involvement.
      • MOTION by David that FMG believes that PSSs that are FHIR-related should come through FMG and FMG should have the right to kick back projects for editing with the understanding that the WG or other body can appeal. Second by Hans.
      • VOTE: all in favor
    • Will the FMG be an interested party/cosponsor of the ArB project to map FHIR specs to the RIM? Should FIWG be leading the project? This has already been approved by TSC and we are not listed. At this point it's likely moot. Grahame has reached out to Ken. After it is discussed at FGB we will likely reach out to TSC again.
    • Where will the new implementer's channel be located; will it be affiliated with FHIR.org; will it be run by someone separate from HL7 or will HL7 run it? Grahame is necessary for this discussion. Add to the agenda for the 9/30 call.
    • FHIR needs two more people to withdraw; 7 more for structured data capture.
    • Anne to add publication request to TSC agenda for vote on call
    • Anne to add to future topics: adding constraints for dropping FMM levels


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lloyd to review DSTU 2 QA page for completeness against the QA spreadsheet: keep for next week
  • Anne to add "Where will the new implementer's channel be located; will it be affiliated with FHIR.org; will it be run by someone separate from HL7 or will HL7 run it?" to 9/30 agenda so Grahame may be present
  • Anne to add publication request to TSC agenda for vote on call
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

20150923 FMG concall

  • What are our criteria for inclusion of content in DSTU 2.1?
  • What are the rules for FMM levels for pages and for profiles/IGs?
  • Given that not all resources will be updating in DSTU 2.1, how do we manage the build environment?
  • Adding constraints for dropping FMM levels


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20150916_FMG_concall&oldid=104371"