This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20131023 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 18:07, 23 October 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#

Date: 2013-10-23
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x Hugh Glover x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio regrets Ron Parker, FGB Chair regrets John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Observers/Guests
x Lorraine Constable regrets Josh Mandel x Lynn Laakso, scribe
David Hay x John Moehrke x Austin Kreisler
x Paul Knapp x Brian Pech x Ken McCaslin


  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Administrative
  • Approving OOC Meetings continued
  • Co-chair election
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


Convened at 1:03 PM

  • Agenda Check: Paul moves and Lorraine seconds the agenda; unanimously approved
  • Administrative
  • Hugh arrives
  • Approving OOC Meetings continued -
    • needs to be sponsored by HL7 International or an affiliate, and approved by FMG. What are the criteria for FMG approval?
      • Identify what version of the spec on which they will draw,
      • describe the scenarios to execute, and
      • prepare a report on lessons learned or feedback. Paul suggests they need to have at least one person familiar with FHIR - Hugh asks how is that assessed?
    • Persons should have participated in a prior connectathon, having an implementation, etc… Hugh fears we may need a certification exam for individuals to allow FHIR connectathons, but will require a great deal more work. Allowing it to remain a judgment call from FMG for now may have to suffice.
    • Lorraine notes they need to assert if they have requirements for a frozen version of the spec and what other requirements they have.
    • Need the names of the coordinator and technical lead for the connectathon, adds Lloyd, and if we don't recognize the names we should ask more questions.
    • Prior connectathons had comments from experience as ballot comments - these other connectathons will probably have to be DSTU comments. There should be some formal feedback mechanism open all the time.
    • Hugh adds that a non-formal hackathon is a different type of event. An "official" FHIR connectathon is what we can have some say in. Paul notes the level of rigor is different. For example, if you certified people in September's connectathon it would no longer be applicable by the end of the week. It's not a "certify-athon".
    • Visibility and reporting 'failures to connect' discussed. Reputational risk with customers in the room described by John. The AUS connectathon wiki page notes that the parties that have interest in the development that will be present. Developer-only event versus a marketing event/demonstration should be distinguished adds Hugh.
    • John notes that we have responsibilities towards protecting the FHIR trademark. While we had a demonstration at the end of the connectathon, but we need to establish rules so that an atmosphere conducive to progress is retained.
    • Lloyd recaps a use case for connectathon and use case for showcase. Need rules for each and conduct of each. For a formal event we need to be able to point interested parties to each type of event and endorsement on that basis. Lloyd asks John to put some draft criteria on a wiki page. ACTION ITEM: John will write up some rules on connectathon versus showcase.
    • You can still have a connectathon with a showcase at the end. We may want to allow people to just sign up for the showcase part of the connectathon. No cost for observing the showcase, and differences in cost for participating only in the showcase. Requirement to demonstrate interoperability versus a slide show. John thinks showcase after a connectathon should be only for development participants. Hugh suggests a separate event for showcase. There is an informal thing on Tuesday nights we could put more formal marketing around if RIMBAA and Tooling agree. ACTION ITEM: Lloyd will email Rene on the discussion, and review again on next week's call. For the NL, the sponsor is Rene and the technical lead is Ewout. 30 days at a minimum announcement is needed. Will have to review for process for approving a connectathon in conjunction with the OOC meeting just passed by the TSC.
  • Co-chair election and term limits - Lloyd will end his term as co-chair in Jan. Do we want term limits on chair or any at large position? It would be a change to the M&C. TSC will discuss relationship of FGB and FMG on Monday and Lloyd should attend. We need to ensure fresh thoughts and ideas are circulated through the committees instead of well-respected people being re-nominated 'forever'. On the other hand a very useful person might be prohibited from continuing. Other pros and cons discussed. Lloyd suggests we include an intent in the governance documents without making it prescriptive.
    • John Quinn's role and appointed nature of body discussed. Annual solicitation of interest in serving on FMG generally agreed, with those already incumbent to indicate their interest in continuing to serve.

Adjourned 2:04 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • John will write up some rules on connectathon versus showcase.
  • Lloyd will email Rene on the discussion, and review again on next week's call
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • 20131030 FMG concall
  • Paul/Lorraine/Brian will draft responsibilities around ballot, publishing levels, etc. Grahame attended ES on Monday and once they get requirements they will move to the next step. Look for a draft on the 30th
  • Lorraine out at IHIC next week

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International