This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20121212 FGB concall notes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2012-12-12 Time: 5:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Ron Parker | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso | |
| Quorum = Chair plus 2 | yes | ||||
| Chair/CTO | Members | Members | |||
| x | Ron Parker | x | George (Woody) Beeler | x | Ewout Kramer |
| x | John Quinn | x | Grahame Grieve | ||
| observers/guests | x | Austin Kreisler Lynn Laakso, scribe | |||
Agenda
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20121205 FGB concall notes
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Woody to develop a project to define deadlines, resources, etc related to MnM
- Review Ron's draft precept document, associated governance points and risks
- What resources need to be in the next ballot.
- Next steps: Responsibilities for resources (education, conformity process, appeal process, vitality)
Minutes
- Roll call – Woody joins from HI
Convened at 5:05 PM ET
- Agenda – Grahame adds collaborations with IHE and DICOM and governance arrangements with them; approved by general consent
- Approve minutes of 20121128 FGB concall notes – Ewout moves and Woody seconds approval. Unanimously approved.
- FMG update –
- Connectathon processes and ballot work proceeding apace.
- Ewout notes Lloyd was concerned about volume of ballot comments. Austin reminds that a for comment ballot then they don't have the same rigor for consideration than other ballot types. Grahame notes Lloyd has more than 70 substantive comments. Discussion ensued on in what manner the Management group should describe how to treat the ballots, in how will we assess whether the material is ready to move to the next ballot. Even perhaps in the assessment and treatment of substantive comments. Grahame suggests we ask the FMG to ask for a triage process based on the extreme ballot load. Woody asks if FMG is managing the ballot or how the ballot gets resolved in comparison to if we were considering the V3 Management group responsibilities. Ron notes we can ask them to define how they determine they have accomplished their due diligence without actually doing the work. They need to coordinate how things are divided up, maybe like the 2.x ballots notes Austin. V2 publishing deals with cross-WG conflicts also.
- Methodology update-
- Woody to develop a project to define deadlines, resources, etc related to MnM
- MnM discussed a process two weeks ago. They developed a set of questions, the answers to which will define the methodology. About 20% have answers and they will continue to work on them.
- Need to update project using old terminology for IR4H (PI#809) to reflect this work
- Woody to develop a project to define deadlines, resources, etc related to MnM
- Collaborations with IHE and DICOM and governance
- Monday Activities with SDOs meeting might be a time to discuss with IHE and DICOM
- Grahame felt we should have our governance group meet directly with IHE/DICOM representatives. John notes the IHE and DICOM representatives need to have sufficient authority in their organizations. Our activities with SDOs sessions are more general and may not have the right representation.
- Woody asks about FHIR spaces, like XDS and DICOM interrelation, if they define a variant of FHIR for their use. Grahame notes there may be certain resources jointly owned organizationally with ballot responsibility. Such shared resources would have their rules. May need to revisit in the future but Woody doesn't expect we will resolve now. Ewout notes there is interest in slicing and dicing V3 CMETs in FHIR and how would those be applied as well.
- Ron recaps it sounds like an invitation-based meeting though open, with appropriate representatives to work on specific purpose for definitional framing of mutual obligations/relationship. This is not suitable for a general session. Grahame would like to see John ask IHE and DICOM for representation at his level. He'll talk to Chuck Jaffe. We'll look for a status on the next call. Need to schedule a time slot. Maybe Wednesday lunch? Maybe dedicate the Monday Activities with SDOs session? Find out who the people are and see what their schedule accommodates as well.
- Ewout notes that HL7 Netherlands and IHE Netherlands have announced a formal cooperation agreement.
- Review Ron's draft precept document, associated governance points and risks **Ron is stuck on too much content and has reached out to Charlie for help. Methodological standards for the expression of resources. What is the precept qualitatively versus declaring a method for developing resources. He'll try to talk to Charlie tomorrow.
- Woody asks if the draft precepts are available. Ron will send it out to the group. Woody notes FMG might also benefit and weigh in; Ron agrees and we should schedule a joint call to review.
- What resources need to be in the next (DSTU) ballot? Grahame feels we should discuss at the WGM after the draft for comment ballot. Touch on this towards the end of the week in Phoenix.
- Next steps: Responsibilities for resources (education, conformity process, appeal process, vitality)
- Vitality is not much of an issue right now. People are engaged.
- Appeal process will assert itself particularly with other SDOs or with list of resources chosen for DSTU.
- Conformity process will also be needed for DSTU ballot.
- Education is of concern. Videos, recorded webcast, what do we need to do for that? Need to reproduce content as we know more. Need a little workplan on this topic. May even warrant a PSS for resources and transition of responsibility to FMG. Three tutorials during the week plus the webinar is broad coverage notes Woody.
- Sunday tutorial is free to facilitators, but Monday's are paid. What should the difference in level of content in paid tutorial versus free, asks Ron. Tutorials are licensed under creative commons, and have overlap. Also need to commercialize involvement like training. Webinar material was also creative commons.
- Usually if a member needs it for educational/development purposes license is usually granted. Seems we could use more clarity. Do we just document what the licensing approach is on the education material? Need to talk to Education Director. Need also to remind that we use this to train our own people. New IP rules may change how the education model works; may be premature until after WGM board meeting.
- Still plan to meet next week? Grahame and John not available.
Adjourned 6:04 PM ET
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
