This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20120829 TSC FGB concall notes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:15, 26 September 2012 by Llaakso (talk | contribs) (Created page with "FGB Members: *George (Woody) Beeler - present *Grahame Grieve - *Ewout Kramer - regrets *Ron Parker - present *John Quinn - present Other attendees *TSC Chair: Austin Kreisler ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FGB Members:

  • George (Woody) Beeler - present
  • Grahame Grieve -
  • Ewout Kramer - regrets
  • Ron Parker - present
  • John Quinn - present

Other attendees

  • TSC Chair: Austin Kreisler - present
  • Scribe: Lynn Laakso - present

GTM: 563-853-898

FHIR Governance Board Wiki page

Update on Next steps:

  • name a chair, to ratify Ron's volunteerism to serve at the first F2F meeting in Baltimore
  • recommend the FHIR Management Group members (FMG) 5-8 members, staggered terms
    • FGB chair - ex officio,
    • CTO - ex officio
    • MnM co-chair - ex officio, as one of the ad-hoc positions
    • one member from each SD appointed by TSC at recommendation of FGB,
    • up to 2 ad-hoc members
      • Woody will contact Beebe (no response yet), Constable (interested but needs to shuffle), Jean Duteau (no response yet), McKenzie (interested), Loyd (interested),
      • Ewout to contact Tom de Jong and Rene Spronk.
      • Austin will talk to Amnon (no response yet), Andy Stechishin (uncommitted, wants to know more)
      • Grahame will talk to David Hay
      • Inquire for interest: expected participation weekly conf call and 1-2 meetings per WGM, point them to the M&C and DMP
    • Ewout suggested as chair of FGB also accommodates position on FMG.
  • adopt DMP
    • DMP Drafted from 24 May for review
  • agree on core precepts for FHIR
    • Review Ewout's draft and Lloyd's comments at FHIR Principles
      • nature of FHIR,
      • When to escalate from Management to Governance, knowing FMG responsibilities for coordinating, shaping the decision process without describing the outcome
      • Ron notes that we need to re-frame this draft in "precept" terms - Lloyd's comment on "covering domain space of 99%" needs to provide direction and guidance, such as covering the majority of implementations with criteria on what to exclude. Document exception or boundary conditions like this: non-uniform, non-repeatable pattern expression, etc. His statements are valuable and correct but you need clarity of language for what constitutes 'goodness' to make majority of decisions without escalation to governance body.
      • Protocol for raising exceptions should be defined, negotiating variances. Points where governance and management intercept should be discussed and defined.
      • Methodology piece - governance can define what constitutes goodness in methodology without describing the methodology
      • We don't know yet how much we don't know... need to operationalize to start.
      • All FHIR Resources will be balloted as a group is an important example of a precept. We may need rationalization and address burden on methodology and tooling to identify the delta.
      • Woody adds that RIM and Vocabulary dependency, mapped and documented according to the RIM and Vocabulary, is not present yet as a precept.
      • He further asks how to subset a domain such as research.
      • Ron notes you need to communicate the priorities in development from the governance. Defined and accepted use cases must be agreeable, and have business case. Guidance needed on representation of the body of knowledge currently out there in the FHIR product. Don't need to mirror what we already have in other products but talk about how the determination is made for urgency, nature of use case, etc.
      • Ron asks, to begin working on FHIR resource, what are the prerequisites? What are the unambiguous requirements? Woody notes that Lloyd drafted a resource development proposal earlier as an example. He adds the case of base resources on which other resources are dependent and do we need to classify them differently or just ensure they're built early. Ron notes taxonomy sounds like methodology. Woody fears it splits methodology and governance, and may need participatory development between all three groups.
      • ACTION ITEM: Ron will take the action to re-frame what Ewout has drafted.
  • set up distribution list or closed listserv - request made, for now as list under the TSC.
  • Ron looking for discussions with persons representing product line examples as the ArB proceeds with the Business Architecture Modeling project (BAM). Austin suggests starting with 2.x publishing. They want to demonstrate how to frame things in the context of a BAM.
  • Adjourned at 17:44 EDT

Next meeting at WGM Sunday AM Annapolis Room. No meeting 2012-09-05