This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20150309 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: 2015-03-09
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
Woody Beeler Lorraine Constable Grahame Grieve David Hay (FMG)
Regrets Dave Shaver Ewout Kramer Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Ron Parker
John Quinn
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
Anne Wizauer, scribe


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20150302 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Austin to discuss name change for the FHIR Ballot Process Pilot at TSC call on Monday
    • Lloyd or Grahame to reach out to Calvin regarding FGB service
    • Anne to reach out to Lorraine for draft
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Conformity Assessment


  • Convened at 4:10
  • Agenda review: add HSI WG content ownership
  • Minutes approved motion by Lloyd, Ewout seconds. None opposed or abstained.
  • Austin did discuss name change; TSC agreed that it should be the HL7 Ballot Process Pilot. Lisa Nelson expressed interest in helping/providing feedback. Anne sent out the link to the co-chairs for the Wiki feedback process. Lorraine will forward Lisa the link. Must include in co-chair handbook.
  • Reaching out to Calvin regarding FGB service – task is now Lorraine’s.
  • FMG updates: reviewing remainder of resource proposals. Some resources don’t have proposals at all. Working with HQ on language around the license. Kicked it back to HQ with some concerns; working with Mark and Karen to come up with acceptable language. Talked with EHR about a project proposal they had around an ISO standard – explained to them that DSTU2 is too soon for the project and that we won’t have a resource for entry as they stated in their PSS. Lorraine mentions closing the loop on approvals – Anne to contact people with approvals.
  • HSI WG issue hasn’t been discussed on TSC because of backlog of issues – will be on agenda for next week. Staff states that HSI does not own content. FHIR needs them to own content. Could HSI coordinate the material with WGs instead of owning it? Ken is hearing that Lloyd is trying to drive a couple of other standards through FHIR, but has concerns of putting the content in the hands of IHE. Lloyd states that several resources are aligned with existing IHE standards in the interest of interoperability. The intended use of document reference, for example, is to support the same use case as the various XDS flavors and the new IHE mobile health data specification. We do not allow external groups to own resources, and the formation of the HSI workgroup was to have a WG at HL7 bound to the same processes and involvement in voting and everything else that would have the liaison responsibility with IHE and would have the expertise around those particular resources to be able to maintain them. Ken states that was not the understanding of the WG – they are supposed to facilitate, not do. Lorraine states that T3SD discussed this with the WG and approved the Mission and Charter and it was very clear at that time. Should be discussed with the WG. Lloyd says that FHIR Core has been managing the content and they thought they could transfer the content to HSI. Ken states that the correct ownership would be structured documents with those subject matter experts. Lloyd will bring this info back to FMG on Wednesday.
  • Methodology: Had first quorate methodology call last week. Continuing to move forward FHIR methodology content on calls through the 22nd and beyond.
  • Precepts development: Looked at Lorraine’s draft. Looked at places we should wordsmith, what should be added, and what may not be appropriate. Made edits to #7. Lorraine gone through the 23rd. Group will read over this document and make further edits over the coming weeks. Ken states that all of these items are already described in the co-chair handbook, the ballot desktop, and the GOM. Why not point at existing rules? Concern that this is a creation of a rule process. Lorraine states that the intent was not to change existing processes but to explicitly express the reasons why so we could put our management processes in context. Not changing anything, simply articulating why.

Next Steps

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

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

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