This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20141013 FGB concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2014-10-13 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: Dave Shaver | Note taker(s): Lynn / Anne | |
| Quorum = Chair plus 2 | yes | ||||||
| Co-Chair/CTO | Members | ||||||
| Woody Beeler | regrets | Lorraine Constable | x | Grahame Grieve | David Hay (FMG) | ||
| x | Dave Shaver | Ewout Kramer | x | Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) | Ron Parker | ||
| x | John Quinn | ||||||
| observers/guests | |||||||
| x | Lynn Laakso, scribe | ||||||
| x | Anne Wizauer, scribe-in-training | ||||||
Agenda
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20141006 FGB concall
- Action Item review:
- followup with provider member candidate (now Dave)
- Need to review definition of FHIR Profile balloting (Lloyd)
- Draft guidance on managing responsibility for the trackers (Lloyd)
- RFP - baseline cost estimates - anything FGB needs to do?
- How should we manage the foreseen "avalanche of expectations" for FHIR (topic from WGM)
- How/where to document the resolution of discussion on Advancing "components" of FHIR through Ballot from WGM
- Additional member(s)
- FMG update -
- FHIR WG status?
- Methodology update-
- Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
Minutes
Convened at 4:07 PM by Dave
- Agenda Review (Woody on vacation in Europe post-ISO meeting) Grahame wishes to add an item on engagement news; amended agenda approved by general consent
- Approve minutes of 20141006 FGB concall; Lloyd moves approval seconded by Grahame. Approved by general consent
- Action Item review:
- followup with provider member candidate (now Dave) needs her contact info
- Dave reached out to Ron Parker to check on intent to participate but has not heard back
- Need to review definition of FHIR Profile balloting (Lloyd) no progress but has drafted guidance on how to maintain profiles and hopes to get to the other action items this week.
- Draft guidance on managing responsibility for the trackers (Lloyd)
- RFP - baseline cost estimates - anything FGB needs to do? Grahame did some followup but needs further discussion with Lloyd - review next week.
- FMG update -
- FHIR WG status: core team has reached acceptance that FHIR WG is necessary. Core content not being well served by existing WGs. Need admin status as WG for scheduling joint sessions, conference calls, etc. Lloyd sent a copy of proposed WG formation request to JohnQ describing FHIR Core WG under FTSD. Anticipate up and running for January. JohnQ will share with Ken and get his feedback. John will add to planning call on Friday for discussion on TSC agenda next week.
- Other engagements - status (Grahame)
- Grahame reports discussions with Halamka and others including potential for funding. He's apprised Chuck and the EC, and should be near future, weeks to months time frame.
- Need to begin considerations of governance and management roles in such funded development. They wish to accelerate the work that would prohibit a May ballot deadline.
- Other potential activities include a provider use case in connectathon, and potential for FHIR User Group meeting next year.
- FHIR Foundation starting to become more of a reality and will involve decisions made by FGB on how it interacts, for implementation support and prioritization within the standard.
- Dave notes that this is important to consider among the 'avalanche of expectations'.
- How should we manage the foreseen "avalanche of expectations" for FHIR (topic from WGM)
- Grahame recounts discussion with Aneesh Chopra who 'wants to get started'; but parts are solid and parts are not. Governance group needs to communicate important message; participants in community must be asked to acknowledge draft status of specification.
- Lloyd asks where he feels the message is not going out clearly. We didn't claim that we would be ready at a given time nor that it was further ahead than it was, but we didn't explicitly state its uncertain condition. Need to be alert to opportunities to correct the messaging. Lloyd says we want to be able to say "stop being scared; we're ready".
- What are we specifically saying about DSTU once it's out the door, is Grahame's concern. Need to reassess the message at that point as well as when opportunity for external funding becomes available. Lloyd cautions that funding source must also be aware that funding is not a guarantee of making timelines. One conversation with the source of funding, one conversation is internal and a third is external, notes Grahame. External messaging needs to be sensitive to current events.
- Remove from next agendas for now.
- Grahame recounts discussion with Aneesh Chopra who 'wants to get started'; but parts are solid and parts are not. Governance group needs to communicate important message; participants in community must be asked to acknowledge draft status of specification.
- How/where to document the resolution of discussion on Advancing "components" of FHIR through Ballot from WGM
- Lloyd has a todo on profile balloting guidance. The only things that were talked about balloting separately from the overall FHIR spec were profiles and IGs. That will be the resolution.
- Grahame notes that when the FHIR core specification settles, there will still be potential for DSTU cycles with additional content (as has been the issue with V2). This is something that will need to be addressed later. Lloyd thinks that the ballot will still be a full FHIR spec, with some content that is DSTU and other content that is normative. The community needs to have a sense of how that can work and what its impact might be.
- Additional member(s) - need to confirm with Catherine and Ron. May want to revisit quorum levels once we're back to full complement and chair+2 is pretty low.
- Methodology update- no update
- Waiting on FMG to review governance points; they are busy with resource proposals.
- other governance processes: FGB is the experiment in the governance model, what should they be focusing on as the next evolution?
- FMG project approval versus the new FHIR Core WG - Lloyd notes that FMG has responsibility for FHIR overall so should retain that approval step. FHIR Core WG "owns" particular pieces of the content just as other WGs "own" pieces of the content.
- Need to think about what FGB will be doing as we are inviting Catherine to join us.
Adjourned 4:58 PM
Next Steps
| Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) | |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
