20141118 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Management
5. Governance
   1. FHIR workgroup discussion ( 15 minutes tops)
6. Other business and planning
7. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20141118 Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
R	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Hufnagel, Steve	?????
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
X	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
X	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
X	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
.	Guests
.	Knapp, Paul	PKnapp Consulting
.	Duteau, Jean	Duteau Design, Inc
.	Shakir, Abdul Malik	City of Hope National Medical Center
.	Laakso, Lynn	HL7
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Agenda and Minute approval
   1. Motion to approve Agenda and Minutes (andy s, Lorraine)
   2. Vote (6-0-0)
2. Fhir Work Group Discussion:
   1. Includes FHIR services, but not Other services. To what degree is the FHIR workgroup owning scope of services and vocabulary?
   2. Zoran: Probably distinguish that SOA is focusing on logical, FHIR is implementable
   3. Paul: What I suggested, with respect to vocabulary. It was not clear, whether they owned the whole space, or only those things in their space.
   4. Zoran: Mention SAIF in the third bullet.
   5. Cecil: My concern: Will this be the case for every new thing that comes along? It will become disjointed. Was this signed off by committees?
   6. Paul: FTSD was trying to get clarity to avoid problems later. With respect to WGs signing off. WGs represented on the call were not understanding, or agreeing that they had signed off on the structure. The consults means that, they will consult with the WGs, but in the end the FHIR core group would make decisions.
   7. Cecil: I would like to see the FGB to go to a Board/TSC vote.
   8. Paul: TSC took a decision in Chicago, there will be one governance board. PLA is defining that at this point. Separate from the TSC, representative of the product lines, like steering divisions - one governance board.
   9. Cecil: Not a good model for HL7.
   10. Paul: What is your view?
   11. Cecil: Our role was to view all of the product lines for consistency, oversee and approve project statements, across various committees- to weigh in with an ARB opinion to the TSC.
   12. Paul: At the moment ARB continues with the same focus, and would be advisory and participatory in Governance Board.
   13. Cecil: How does that make sense? That was the charter.
   14. Tony: Arb is the Governance expert, not the Governor.
   15. Cecil: So Arb should be disbanded, in favor of the governance board.
   16. Paul: Someone needs to do the organizational architecture, and not be in the day-to-day governance. From a pragmatic issue, what is FGB doing that we could not do in ARB?
   17. Andy B: If there is an ARB and a single governance group, the rules for the roles of each of these groups needs to be explicity defined. The contribution of Zoran: The separation of persectives - FHIR is consuming both conceptual and implementable - the separation between the implementable and logical is difficult looking at FHIR. The way things are modelled goes beyond the implementable approach FHIR is taking.
   18. Paul: Unfortunately since it was anticipated that FHIR needed to move quickly we went around all of the safeguards, which does not adhere to separation of concerns. There is a comfort working that way. Part of the growing up is we are having to put the separation of duties back in place. The proposal reads like "lets enshrine the project" instead of the separaton of duties. From the ArB perspective what do we intend to do?
   19. Paul: This is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. A dictatorship can move faster. Without the checks and balances you cant achieve the overall organizational goals.
   20. Zoran: What about John Quinn?
   21. Paul: John thought this would bring it under control, but I think it enshrines the current status.
   22. Andy B: FHIR sees itself at the center of the universe, where it should not be. If HL7 allows FHIR to be in the center point. It is a fundamental decision at this point. The ARB sits independent of any approach, and outside the sphere of influence. Either FHIR is at the center of a service universe, or SOA should have influence on the implementation. It would be unfortunate if the Logical and implementable were defined in FHIR.
   23. Paul: I agree. If something needs to get create in FHIR does the domain commitee go to FHIR, or FHIR to the domain committee. - Multiple universes. FHIR will not be the last thing HL7 does - there will be something after XML, HTTP and FHIR.
   24. Andy B: We need an insurance policy that we can not be overwhelmed by the thing of the moment.
   25. Paul: Implementers dont implement just one standard. They are going to use the same vocab, infrastructure across the three.
   26. Andy b: The marketing brochure says it does everything, but in fact it just does a slice of everything.
   27. Paul: We need to be mindful of the fact that it is a content model.
3. Adjournment
   1. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 PM Eastern