This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130507 FGB WGM meeting

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes


Date: 2013-05-07
Time: 9 am Q1 U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ron Parker Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Chair/CTO Members Members
x Ron Parker x George (Woody) Beeler regrets, attending PA Ewout Kramer
regrets, BOD John Quinn x Grahame Grieve
x Lloyd McKenzie, FMG
x Yan Heras (briefly)
x Ken Gerlach, CDC
x Mike Henderson
x Lynn Laakso, scribe


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20130505 FGB WGM meeting
  • Vitality process presentation
  • Action Item review:
    • establish policy and process of incorporation of donated resources by external entities, acknowledgements and so on.
    • Develop policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability.
  • Education plan recap from Ron joining Education Monday Q3,
  • finish Risk assessment.


Convened at 9:10 AM

  • Roll call - joined by Lloyd of FMG, Ken of CDC whose interest in Immunization, Yan Heras of Lantana and cochair of Clinical Genomics, and Mike Henderson of Eastern Informatics who has been involved in connectathon. Yan's interests lay more in the PA session and she departs.
  • Approve minutes of 20130505 FGB WGM meeting Grahame moves and Woody seconds approval, unanimously approved.
  • Education plan recap from Ron joining Education Monday Q3, elearning team working with David Hay on education material. Ambassador initiative discussed. Sharon had good ideas. Rather than education focused on the content of a rapidly evolving topic instead develop education on how to navigate the material available. ACTION ITEM: Someone from FMG/FGB needs to cover with Education concalls (Ron and/or David).
  • Vitality process presentation
    • This was used for the orientation and introduction to SDWG cochairs. Relevancy is about ensuring that the governance is designed to help the product to succeed. Lloyd adds it's also about verifying relevancy of the product.
    • Wishing to enable managing change to the IT environment
    • Grahame suggests asking FMG to maintain a list of the metrics, and suggesting utilization rates of certain resources from the servers. Governance process needs to periodic assessments of the metrics or setting thresholds or trends for triggering review and assessment. Woody notes that rollback of commits once per day is also indicative of a problem. Lloyd notes governance metrics versus management perspective. Lloyd responds with a metric of how many people have been banned from committing in the last six months. It may not be captured proactively, but would have to surface as awareness of a trend. Proactive metrics might be who is using what, are we seeing stability in certain resources, is content coming in from certain WGs. What are the specific risks we want to deal with, proactively versus reactively.
    • Ron suggests that this is really the essence of governance, and it is very lightweight. It may be more applicable to the TSC governance process than what is being tried now.
    • Grahame notes that his current operational metric is the number of people whining to him. If the whining on either side of an issue is fairly equal in size he finds it to be more or less in balance. Some current issues revolve around vendors wishing more granularity, to others wanting to build their own resources, to those that wish to contribute their work to HL7. We are not getting queries on why we're doing this - market recognition is solid. Clinical community has to know what the tools are that support their efforts. Woody finds IT needs to be responsive not proactive to clinical practice guidelines. Ron suggests he pitch this model to the FMG and talk with them about coming up with metrics. Next logical question is where do we observe these metrics.
  • Action Item review:
    • establish policy and process of incorporation of donated resources by external entities, acknowledgements and so on. Policy considerations for external contributions to FHIR:
      • If someone donates content definition, do they have the right to do so (IP issues)
        • Some of these issues will be things that HL7 HQ needs to be aware of and equipped to deal with (IP integrity and ownership issues, whether they have the right to give the IP to us)
        • There are precedents in other organizations that once you donate, it belongs to the receiving organization. This is incorporated in the governance and terms of membership (e.g. GS1)
        • There is a risk associated with having to retrospectively yield content.
      • External donations may (will) come with strings attached.
        • There will always be implications for the donating organization.
        • There needs to be a handover process. They have operational expertise and there needs to be a mediated handover. ACTION ITEM: Grahame will speak with the Executive Committee (EC) on setting the ground rules for accepting donations.
        • An alternative is to have a contributor publish under an open license. Thisis a tool under which these fundamental agreements may be executed
        • This may be a consideration for determining if an existing WG can deal with the contributed content or creating a new WG.
        • Whatever they donate must go through the "new resources" process. This includes a technical level evaluation
        • You need to address marketing of the concept and publicity considerations for the contributions.
    • Develop policy assertion from the FGB on the approach to extensions and discoverability.
      • Discussion on developing the technical support and return with a description of how that will work. ACTION ITEM: Grahame will bring a draft approach.
  • finish Risk assessment on upcoming concall when Ron has had time to update.
  • FHIR WG discussion comes back to the idea of SME versus product concept. How do Governance, management, methodology existing separate from the technical development? Grahame feels it's unwise. He sees the comparison in SDWG and simultaneously its benefits and challenges. Woody notes that they envisioned back in Cologne that projects would emerge that had their own meeting room space and so forth. Ron agrees there a need, but the fulfillment of the need is a WG. Need a persistent location, structure, and recognizable form. Woody relates this to the "location" of V2, who owns it. HQ Resources available to Work Groups not immediately obvious for a project group. FHIR Core "owns" certain resources, notes Lloyd, and will delegate definition and maintenance of the resource from the group that defines and maintains the methodology at some point. There are WGs that maintain the infrastructure for V2 (CGIT and InM) that may relate to how FHIR infrastructure will be maintained. There are no existing WGs that are appropriate homes right now. Grahame asks if the BAM will deal with those long-standing issues of where those are located. Woody notes that V3 messaging has MnM, ITS and Vocabulary having responsibility for core infrastructure. WG that defines DT should not be responsibility for the methodology for DT Lloyd counters. Woody asks how this compares this to a RIM WG? Ron notes BAM approach as it is in its nascent stage the current WG structure doesn't solve for this. Product inventory, product director, other concepts important to sustain the emerging BAM and Ron accepts that he and Jane discussed this in their development. Grahame wants to wait and see how these other issues play out and leave the FHIR Core group within MnM is still working out.
  • Grahame raises an issue with John Moehrke that noted IHE wishes to take control of the Security Event resource. While there may be operational grounds for working with them on the resource, but organizationally it is anathema. Woody notes that collaborating with other SDOs we must limit those that clearly fall into joint space but we maintain the core resource. Ron notes IHE does not have a governance perspective around this resource within IHE to make the community comfortable with such an arrangement. The scope of a core resource is beyond supporting the IHE profile.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.