This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20160518 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2015-mm-dd 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 |
. | Wayne Kubick, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | Brian Postlethwaite | x | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | Regrets | Grahame Grieve |
| . | Lenel James | ||||||
| . | Bob Dieterle | ||||||
| . | Eric Haas | ||||||
Agenda
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2016-05-08_FMG_FGB_WGM
- Minutes from 2016-05-09_FMG_WGM
- Minutes from 2016-05-12_FMG_FGB_WGM
- Action items
- Grahame will post a roadmap for STU3 on his blog and distribute for comment via email
- Discuss Connectathon registration form options for tracks with HQ and the possibility of emailing participants
- Prompt track leads to follow provided education
- Lloyd to forward MnM PSS when complete
- Lloyd to reach out to Bryn to ask him to complete DecisionSupport proposals and forward when complete
- Lloyd to update explanation on how to read the reports spreadsheet and see if he can get the emails to work properly; then send an email to the co-chairs to review/address the stale column.
- Paul/David to follow up with Devices to make sure proposals are complete with approval dates
- Hans to reach out to relevant WGs at WGM to help nail down the issues around SupplyDelivery
- Approval Items
- Discussion Topics
- Communicating to the community around resources where we’re waiting for implementation topic
- 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
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to accept by Hans; second by Paul
- VOTE: all in favor
- Minutes from 2016-05-08_FMG_FGB_WGM
- MOTION to accept by Hans; second by Lloyd.
- VOTE: Paul and John abstain. Remaining in favor.
- Minutes from 2016-05-09_FMG_WGM
- MOTION to accept by Lloyd; second by Hans
- VOTE: John and Paul abstain. Remaining in favor.
- Minutes from 2016-05-12_FMG_FGB_WGM
- MOTION to accept by Hans; second by Lloyd
- VOTE: John abstains. Remaining in favor
- Action items
- Grahame will post a roadmap for STU3 on his blog and distribute for comment via email
- Shared draft; send comments ASAP
- Discuss Connectathon registration form options for tracks with HQ and the possibility of emailing participants
- David will take the action
- Prompt track leads to follow provided education
- David will take the action
- Lloyd to forward MnM PSS when complete
- Lloyd to send to Paul for FTSD review and e-vote
- Lloyd to reach out to Bryn to ask him to complete DecisionSupport proposals and forward when complete
- In the process of changing it; leave on
- Lloyd to update explanation on how to read the reports spreadsheet and see if he can get the emails to work properly; then send an email to the co-chairs to review/address the stale column.
- Leave on for next week
- Paul/David to follow up with Devices to make sure proposals are complete with approval dates
- Leave on for next week. They have not been responsive to Paul's emails.
- Hans to reach out to relevant WGs at WGM to help nail down the issues around SupplyDelivery
- Complete. Working to fine tune the definitions.
- DeviceUseRequest is listed as being owned by CDS; should probably be in Pharmacy/Patient Care/O&O instead.
- Work is underway. Hans to reach out to CDS for their agreement and will report back.
- Grahame will post a roadmap for STU3 on his blog and distribute for comment via email
- Approval Items
- FHIR Repository Process and Requirements - latest version
- Lenel and Bob here to discuss. Item was voted on at WGM but the document has changed since then as a result of SGB review. FMG is now the sponsor instead of FGB. PSS is to work out requirements from the process perspective. Discussion over why it is called repository as opposed to registry. US Realm added Templates and EST. Hans comments that in bullet three it calls out US Realm and FMG should consider where other localities will register. Lenel states it should say "starting" in the US Realm. Lenel suggests a clarification to the scope to address the issue. Hans just wants it to be clear that others will be able to contribute to the repository.
- MOTION to accept that this is an FMG-sponsored project by Hans with the clarification that it is not exclusive to US-realm level registrations. Second by Paul
- VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
- ACTION: Anne to add to TSC agenda for approval contingent upon FGB and EST approval of co-sponsorship
- Lenel and Bob here to discuss. Item was voted on at WGM but the document has changed since then as a result of SGB review. FMG is now the sponsor instead of FGB. PSS is to work out requirements from the process perspective. Discussion over why it is called repository as opposed to registry. US Realm added Templates and EST. Hans comments that in bullet three it calls out US Realm and FMG should consider where other localities will register. Lenel states it should say "starting" in the US Realm. Lenel suggests a clarification to the scope to address the issue. Hans just wants it to be clear that others will be able to contribute to the repository.
- Tools Evaluation PSS
- Lloyd recuses himself from decision making as he may have a conflict of interest. The project is to look at replacing Gforge with Jira. Paul states project as described to TSC was to look at Jira as opposed to tracker; not being considered for replacing tracker in its balloting role at this time. Lloyd states his understanding is replacing everything gforge does with Jira, although there is no timeline for doing so. If we move to Jira it would take on at least FHIR's use of gforge for tracking. This project is simply for evaluation. There would be a subsequent project for transition if that is decided upon. Josh is concerned that this process will be too long and we won't be able to process ballot items with it in DSTU 3. Lloyd states that is an open question. Paul states that TSC said there should be no expectation that we would replace our current tooling in the near term. Discussion over why there is not a PSS to replace what we have. Josh asks why we can't test DSTU 3 balloting with Jira. Lloyd explains that requires TSC approval. Discussion over lack of requirements.
- MOTION to approve by Paul. Second by Hans.
- VOTE: Lloyd abstains. Remaining in favor.
- Lloyd recuses himself from decision making as he may have a conflict of interest. The project is to look at replacing Gforge with Jira. Paul states project as described to TSC was to look at Jira as opposed to tracker; not being considered for replacing tracker in its balloting role at this time. Lloyd states his understanding is replacing everything gforge does with Jira, although there is no timeline for doing so. If we move to Jira it would take on at least FHIR's use of gforge for tracking. This project is simply for evaluation. There would be a subsequent project for transition if that is decided upon. Josh is concerned that this process will be too long and we won't be able to process ballot items with it in DSTU 3. Lloyd states that is an open question. Paul states that TSC said there should be no expectation that we would replace our current tooling in the near term. Discussion over why there is not a PSS to replace what we have. Josh asks why we can't test DSTU 3 balloting with Jira. Lloyd explains that requires TSC approval. Discussion over lack of requirements.
- DAF Phase 3 PSS and DAF FHIR Resource Proposal
- Group reviews DAF FHIR IG PSS. Lloyd recuses himself as he is working on the DAF project. Describes the two goals of the project. One question is whether it should continue to be sponsored by InM or should it now go to FHIR-I? Hans states that shifting to FHIR-I makes sense. Has concerns about the scope looking back to MU stage 2; wonders if it should look at the 2015 edition instead. Lloyd will take that back to the WG. Eric would like to see the scope more accurately reflecting the intent.
- This is not for vote today; will vote on it when it comes back.
- DAF FHIR Resource Proposal
- Has changed within the last 48 hours. Will review in the future.
- Harmonization of Health Quality Models
- Group reviews. Surprise that ARB and Clinical Statement are involved. Hans has concerns that the scope is too broad. David suggests the word identify instead of develop in the first sentence would be more appropriate. Hans suggests "identify and develop with" the appropriate WGs. Lloyd wonders what the differences are between this model and DAF.
- Anne to reach out Bryn Rhodes and Ken Kawamoto to invite to next week's call to discuss.
- Group reviews. Surprise that ARB and Clinical Statement are involved. Hans has concerns that the scope is too broad. David suggests the word identify instead of develop in the first sentence would be more appropriate. Hans suggests "identify and develop with" the appropriate WGs. Lloyd wonders what the differences are between this model and DAF.
- MnM PSS: FHIR Methodology and data types maintenance
- Add to next week
- FHIR Repository Process and Requirements - latest version
- Discussion Topics
- Communicating to the community around resources where we’re waiting for implementation
- How do we let implementers know that they need to share implementation information? Who is actually using stuff? Have solicited implementer goals for maturity levels; we need evidence of reaching those goals. Need to put together formal message summarizing survey results and what we need for next steps.
- ACTION: Add to next week to determine who will draft
- How do we let implementers know that they need to share implementation information? Who is actually using stuff? Have solicited implementer goals for maturity levels; we need evidence of reaching those goals. Need to put together formal message summarizing survey results and what we need for next steps.
- Communicating to the community around resources where we’re waiting for implementation
- 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)
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
