This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-01-10 FMG concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2018-01-10 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 | Lorraine Constable, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | Wayne Kubick, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Richard Ettema, Sandy Vance, Amol Vyas, Didi Davis | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-01-03_FMG_concall
- Administrative
- Action items
- David to reach out to Todd again re: Devices on FHIR track
- OccupationalDataforHealth Resource proposal to be discussed in New Orleans
- Sandy will communicate to the track leads that they should add what release the track is using as part of the orientation template
- Review Items
- Publication Request for HL7 FHIR® Profile: C-CDA, Release 1
- Discussion
- Artifact Name Algorithm
- FHIR Path Issues/FMG Scope vs. FHIR product family
- 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
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- MOTION to approve: David/Hans
- VOTE: All in favor
- Minutes from 2018-01-03_FMG_concall
- MOTION to approve: David/Brian Pech
- VOTE: Hans/Brian Post abstain. Remaining in favor
- Administrative
- New set of DMPs out. Restricted as to where we can have divergences.
- Reviewed modification template and new standard DMP. Will need to adjust quorum requirement on the modification template to reflect chair plus 4. Discussion over staff inclusion in FMG as represented in section 2G. Decision to leave staff as a non-voting participant for the time being.
- MOTION to post modification template reflecting altered quorum rules: Hans/David
- Reviewed modification template and new standard DMP. Will need to adjust quorum requirement on the modification template to reflect chair plus 4. Discussion over staff inclusion in FMG as represented in section 2G. Decision to leave staff as a non-voting participant for the time being.
- New set of DMPs out. Restricted as to where we can have divergences.
- Action items
- David to reach out to Todd again re: Devices on FHIR track
- Has been removed from the Connectathon page.
- OccupationalDataforHealth Resource proposal to be discussed in New Orleans
- David talked about it with Ewout. He is aware of the issue in advance of the discussion.
- Sandy will communicate to the track leads that they should add what release the track is using as part of the orientation template
- Richard reports that Sandy did send out an email to all track leads with that information on it. Sandy joins near the end of the call and confirms.
- David to reach out to Todd again re: Devices on FHIR track
- Review Items
- Publication Request for HL7 FHIR® Profile: C-CDA, Release 1
- Discussion over relationship with FHIR core.
- Grahame reports that he has enough information to publish.
- MOTION to accept: Hans/Brian Pech
- VOTE: All in favor
- Publication Request for HL7 FHIR® Profile: C-CDA, Release 1
- Discussion
- Artifact Name Algorithm
- Reviewed draft. Purpose of changes is to make names more friendly and understandable to newcomers. Discussion over proposal and next steps. Decision that this would be a good starting point for the TSC to discuss.
- MOTION that we pass this to TSC for review: Hans/Josh
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Lloyd to run it past Wayne and Grahame as far as best way to engage with TSC.
- Reviewed draft. Purpose of changes is to make names more friendly and understandable to newcomers. Discussion over proposal and next steps. Decision that this would be a good starting point for the TSC to discuss.
- FHIR Path Issues/FMG Scope vs. FHIR product family
- FHIR Path is not part of the spec but it is part of the FHIR product family. Discussion over whether it should have to adhere to quality criteria. Lloyd had asked what management group is responsible for it - does FMG just manage the spec, or the product? Reviewed the boilerplate product family mission and charter. It seems to indicate that responsibilities are by product rather than artifact. ITS is responsible for the content, but they can't decide when the product goes to ballot. To date FMG hasn't had responsibility for any artifacts that weren't FHIR core or derived from FHIR core. Brian Pech asks where the dissenting voices are coming from? Lloyd: The first question si whether FMG is responsible for FHIR Path in the same way it's responsible for FHIR core, etc. If that's true, we would need to engage in discussion with ITS on what quality criteria expectations are for FHIR Path in order to take FHIR Path normative. The question is can ITS work independently, or does FMG have a role to play? FHIR Path can be used elsewhere.
- MOTION that, if something is part of our product family, we have the same management role over it as we do the core spec: David/Brian Post
- VOTE: Brian Pech abstains. Remaining in favor
- ACTION: Lloyd will send a note to Austin and Wayne to have this discussed by TSC.
- FHIR Path is not part of the spec but it is part of the FHIR product family. Discussion over whether it should have to adhere to quality criteria. Lloyd had asked what management group is responsible for it - does FMG just manage the spec, or the product? Reviewed the boilerplate product family mission and charter. It seems to indicate that responsibilities are by product rather than artifact. ITS is responsible for the content, but they can't decide when the product goes to ballot. To date FMG hasn't had responsibility for any artifacts that weren't FHIR core or derived from FHIR core. Brian Pech asks where the dissenting voices are coming from? Lloyd: The first question si whether FMG is responsible for FHIR Path in the same way it's responsible for FHIR core, etc. If that's true, we would need to engage in discussion with ITS on what quality criteria expectations are for FHIR Path in order to take FHIR Path normative. The question is can ITS work independently, or does FMG have a role to play? FHIR Path can be used elsewhere.
- Formalizing policies around resources in ballots that don't have resource proposals in place
- There are concerns some resources that don't have resource proposals and seem rough around the edges being included in the ballot. We've been asked to develop a policy around this.
- ACTION: Add to next week
- There are concerns some resources that don't have resource proposals and seem rough around the edges being included in the ballot. We've been asked to develop a policy around this.
- Artifact Name Algorithm
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- 167 registered so far.
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- Call adjourned at 5:30 pm Eastern
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
