This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20150902 FMG concall
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2015-09-02 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | John Quinn, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | Regrets | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | x | Lorraine Constable |
| x | Brian Scheller | ||||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20150826_FMG_concall
- Administrative
- Action items
- Lloyd to work with David on running the list of approved profiles
- David to remove people who have not responded from the SkypeChat
- Lloyd to review DSTU2 QA page for completeness against the QA spreadsheet
- Action items
- Discussion Topics
- Motion to find outstanding tracker items for ballot comments non-persuasive/considered for future use
- Approval to send out reconciliation package
- Decision on what to do about the 33 resources that don't meet QA criteria and, based on declared policy, should be dropped to draft
- What sorts of changes can be made as part of QA?
- Correction to missing search criteria
- [1]
- Mitre's request to extend the timeframe for making substantive changes to IGs
- 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?
- FHIR.org confusion - will it be owned by HL7 or will it be a complementary site fun independently?
- 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?
- 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
- Called to order at 4:07
- MOTION to approve agenda by Brian Pech; second by Lorraine
- VOTE: all in favor
- MOTION to approve minutes by Brian Post; second by Paul
- VOTE: Lorraine abstains; all others in favor (6/1/0)
- Action items
- Lloyd to work with David on running the list of approved profiles: Lloyd worked with David although he's not sure it's been completed. Not sure if we can expect to filter out unapproved profiles - it is proving difficult. Another issue is approval by the sponsoring WGs for the IG to proceed to publication. Paul: we need to complete a step where the WG confirms that they want the material included.
- MOTION by Paul that the FMG will notify co-chairs and FHIR list that the requirement for WGs to review all profiles and extensions created against their resources will be waived for the purposes of this release but WGs are reminded that this will not be common practice and they do have responsibility for such review. In addition, WGs that are sponsoring IGs are requested to vote to endorse those IGs preceding publication . The FMG recognizes that this endorsement may not be based on thorough review for this release; however, WGs and projects are responsible for ensuring communication and review and have final authority over publication of such IGs. Second by Brian Post.
- VOTE: All in favor.
- ACTION: Anne to add to upcoming agenda how we add the review of profiles against resources by the WGs responsible for those resources into the timeline process
- David to remove people who have not responded from the SkypeChat - forward to next week
- Lloyd to review DSTU2 QA page for completeness against the QA spreadsheet - forward to next week
- Action items
- Discussion Topics
- There are 28 negative vote items without dispositions, 15 negatives that have a disposition that involves making changes that are yet unmade.
- MOTION from Paul to flag those items as deferred to the next release. Brian Pech seconds.
- VOTE: all in favor
- MOTION by Lorraine to send out reconciliation package; second by Paul.
- VOTE: all in favor
- Decision on what to do about the 33 resources that don't meet QA criteria and, based on declared policy, should be dropped to draft
- Policy was that if resource had warnings in the build, you would be FMM 0, which is automatically draft.
- 33 out of 70 of the resources expected to be non-draft would end up being draft due to warnings
- Concern that this would punish the implementers more than the WG
- MOTION by Paul to move the resources to draft. Second by Josh. Paul: alternative would be that we allow them to make substantive changes past the deadline. Lloyd: three possibilities - 1) you have warnings, you get dropped to draft; 2) certain set of changes that you can make that we consider to be unsubstantive or sufficiently unsubstantive that you may make them over the next two weeks; or 3) we say that the policy was declared with the intention of getting WGs to fix their warnings and the policy did not work as well as expected, but it wasn't to tell the implementers that these items weren't ready for implementation. Motion abandoned.
- Lloyd describes each issue and group discusses whether to enforce the drop to draft.
- Clear if we fix examples: not a reason to drop to draft
- Example points to incorrect item: not a reason
- Have not declared an example set of codes for the example (has no binding): if there is no binding declared or the binding has a strength other than example and doesn't provide a value set, then it should go to draft.
- Short description doesn't add new information: not a reason
- Element names should be singular: not a reason
- All resources should have an identifier: not a reason
- Search parameter identifier token type illegal for imaging object selection type UID (specific to imaging): treat this as technical correction
- Elements with the name subject cannot be a reference to just a patient: Not a reason
- What sorts of changes can be made as part of QA?
- Are we comfortable with people correcting and editing examples? Group agrees that yes, we would be comfortable with that.
- Issue from tracker of "adding guidance in the list resource to explain how querying a base resource is different from querying Lists and their contents..." The question is are we comfortable that we can fill in that information and treat it as applied, or should we make this item deferred? Group agrees to complete it.
- MOTION by Paul that we've identified four types of changes in addition to those we've already authorized to include adding a binding to either unbound or example; fixing the invalid search type for OIDs; enhancing examples to address warnings; and the tracker item. Second by Brian Post.
- VOTE: all in favor
- Mitre's request to extend the timeframe for making substantive changes to IGs
- They want until the end of the QA period.
- MOTION by Paul to authorize Mitre to make substantive changes up to and including 2015-09-14, recognizing that will be a hard freeze date. Lorraine: this should include all IG authors. Hans seconds.
- VOTE: All in favor.
- There are 28 negative vote items without dispositions, 15 negatives that have a disposition that involves making changes that are yet unmade.
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
