This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20140825 FGB concall

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

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 136-494-157

Date: 2014-08-25
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator:Woody Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
x Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay (FMG)
Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Ron Parker
x John Quinn
observers/guests regrets Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20140818 FGB concall
  • Next Monday - US Labor Day - cancel?
  • Action Item review:
    • Woody to contact Catherine
  • Discussion
    • Vendor Consultation process (email thread review)
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.


Convened at 4:04 PM

  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20140818 FGB concall Lorraine moves and Lloyd seconds approval of both agenda and minutes; unanimously approved
  • Next Monday - US Labor Day - cancel? Lloyd moves we cancel; Lorraine seconds. Unanimously approved
  • Action Item review:
    • Woody to contact Catherine - has not yet
  • Discussion
    • Vendor Consultation process (email thread review)
      • Grahame narrates the suggestion and the feedback so far.
      • Concern expressed over the quality of the questions, meaningful and well-presented.
      • Should be exchange of information that has trust in both directions
      • JohnQ recounts the experience with early V2 and illustrates differences
      • Grahame thinks it's important but would be happy to delegate to other players they would trust. Woody asks if a review of the questions a priori would be in order. Grahame feels the questions should be asked on the FMG list.
      • Ewout asks about Ron's suggestion that it should not be someone on the core team as the SPOC (single-point-of-contact). Lloyd wonders what HQ feedback would be on the lack of transparency of the process. HQ as intermediary does not have the knowledge and level of experience in FHIR to set the level of detail in responses appropriately for neutrality. Ewout agrees that the contact/coordinator needs to have a high level of familiarity with the specification. Who then is knowledgeable enough but not part of the core team?
      • Anonymized aggregation function between requests and responses might work with appropriate controls in place notes Lloyd. Need list of those solicited (can be anonymized). Medium term need >1 person with complete access to questions and responses in raw form (more eyes on the raw data) to remove perception of vulnerability to abuse.
      • Question asked and summarized answer(s) would be public but raw answers would be masked. How do you do xyz or how do you handle such and such would be the types of questions Lloyd states.
      • Woody feels we would need to periodically review the Q&A and name the SPOC to the FGB.
      • Lloyd suggests Lynn be copied on all the correspondence as watchdog for the SPOC. Grahame is ok with that. Lloyd proposes the process include: Public request received for a question to go to the vendors. Grahame decides if it goes to the vendors and how it's phrased. Appeals to FMG/FGB. Grahame queries a private email list with private responses to Grahame and Lynn; Grahame puts together a summarized response and posts back to the list.
      • Ewout asks if he can invite vendors from his country to participate, and can they go through him or must they go through Grahame? Grahame notes that the questions would be on the FHIR list but answers could also be forwarded privately to Grahame to add to the responses. A vendor can then ask to be invited to the private list. The more contributions the better.
      • Lloyd suggests the process be highlighted in the newsletter once up and running. Newsletter and e-news could promote and the affiliates could send notice to their local organizations. Establish as a trial and let it run for 6 months and then review. Set volume expectation to 4-6 questions per month.
      • ACTION ITEM: Lloyd will write up the process and rationale on the wiki - wiki page can act as landing point and solicitation as well as anonymized disclosure of participants.
  • Precepts sent to FMG but their call was consumed talking about this issue.
  • Grahame reports that implementation is moving ahead orders of magnitude greater than what they had planned on and potentially faster than we can handle/support. Grahame noted that we need to strengthen communication between the project and the TSC and Board. He would welcome ideas how to improve that. Small issues can become big discussion points and generate a lot of noise. Need consistent messaging on the project and the team as a whole must be able to point to the same message.
    • He reports he spends probably a day a week on media work coverage as well as ONC and other programs. Need consistent message that yes, we're coming along well, but it's draft and there's a long way to go.
    • Lorraine asks how other groups e.g. US Realm Task Force can help reinforce the message? Grahame is working on talking points based on questions from last round.
    • Expanding a development team broadens the decision making but governance does not scale as quickly, Grahame describes. It's a process of recruiting those that are known in the community, bringing in those on long-term basis. He's looking for players in the community and encouraging them to get involved in FHIR. We still want to engage those that pop up and want to get involved as well. ONC interacts with HL7 mostly at the C-level.

Adjourned 4:58 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lloyd will write up the Vendor Consultation process and rationale on the wiki
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.