This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20150316 FGB concall"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst:: FGB Template}}") |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| width="0%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': | | width="0%" colspan="2" align="right"|'''Facilitator''': | ||
| − | | width="0%" colspan="1" align="right"|'''Note taker(s)''': | + | | width="0%" colspan="1" align="right"|'''Note taker(s)''': Anne W. |
|} | |} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|colspan="2"|Co-Chair/CTO ||colspan="6"|Members | |colspan="2"|Co-Chair/CTO ||colspan="6"|Members | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||Woody Beeler|| ||Lorraine Constable|| ||Grahame Grieve|| || David Hay (FMG) | + | | ||Woody Beeler||Regrets||Lorraine Constable||x||Grahame Grieve|| || David Hay (FMG) |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||Dave Shaver || | + | |x||Dave Shaver ||x|| Ewout Kramer||Regrets||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) || ||Ron Parker |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||John Quinn || || || || || || | + | |x||John Quinn || || || || || || |
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" rowspan="3"|observers/guests | |colspan="2" rowspan="3"|observers/guests | ||
| − | | || | + | |x||Calvin Beebe |
|- | |- | ||
| − | ||| | + | |x||Anne W., scribe |
|- | |- | ||
| || | | || | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*Roll call - | *Roll call - | ||
*Agenda Review | *Agenda Review | ||
| − | *Approve minutes of [[ | + | *Approve minutes of [[20150309 FGB concall]] |
*Action Item review: | *Action Item review: | ||
| + | **Lorraine to reach out to Calvin regarding FGB service | ||
| + | **Lloyd to discuss HSI WG content issue with FMG | ||
| + | **Further discussion/review of draft of precepts | ||
*FMG update - | *FMG update - | ||
*Methodology update- | *Methodology update- | ||
| Line 47: | Line 50: | ||
==Minutes== | ==Minutes== | ||
| − | + | *Called to order at 4:07 pm | |
| + | *Minutes reviewed and approved by general consent. | ||
| + | *Agenda: no additions or subtractions | ||
| + | *FMG update: must decide this week what to do about FHIR ballot; potential to delay due to lack of readiness. ON the other hand, the iterative process makes it hard to determine if it’s truly necessity. Argonaut do not want any significant delay based on arbitrary quality rules. FMG aren’t very impressed by that and want to stick to process, although that is more defensible on normative rather than DSTU. What role does FGB have in this decision? Grahame is looking for governance input from FMG. What do we want to do about ballot schedule – do we improve depth/readiness of ballot vs. make formal progress with what we have? Issue of process is creating conditions that we haven’t had before. There is constant feedback coming in and it will continue to do so whether or not the ballot goes forth. Process questions from the draft for comment ballot and its reconciliation before we go ahead with the DSTU. Ewout – can we put a stake in the ground? If we want to do the DSTU, we just need to decide despite the constant evolution. Identify a number of new features that we want to introduce and determine if we have enough documentation to do in DSTU. Grahame: 2 running things: 1) committees are in uncertain state with the general task list, such as reconciliation, and 2) specific, unresolved issues around workflows – requests, order response – that are known not to be ready. Lloyd thinks we should hold off for four weeks and resolve them. The concern of FMG is that the next ballot is supposed to be normative and if we rush out the DSTU we may not be able to go normative next time. Going from DSTU1 to DSTU2 – issues of merging together. What is the pressure to do either of the choices? DSTU 2 or internal sync point and do DSTU later? What’s to keep us from doing DSTU3? Real pressure is that world wants the normative standard done. Grahame states they just want something stable they can implement. Worst outcome is to back away from doing DSTU2, because then input becomes theoretical vs. practical. Ewout – we need to put a stake in the ground to get people to the new version. Dave summarizes that the general feeling is that an incomplete DSTU would be preferable to waiting another cycle? General agreement. Dave will draft statement as such and post on Skype. | ||
| + | *Calvin Beebe is present on the call and will be listening as he gets up to speed. | ||
| + | *Precepts document: last time we had Ken on the call and he thought the document was perhaps redundant. Lorraine stated that it was to put our management in context. Suggestion to email version that has been edited and send it out for next week’s agenda. Lorraine will be out for the next two meetings but may discuss in her absence. | ||
| − | |||
===Next Steps=== | ===Next Steps=== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 62: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/> | ||
| − | * | + | *Dave to draft statement regarding FGB opinion on balloting and post on Skype |
| + | *Anne to email edited precepts draft | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | ||
| − | *[[ | + | *[[20150323 FGB concall]] |
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:21, 20 March 2015
| HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2014-mm-dd Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = Chair plus 2 | yes/no | ||||||
| Co-Chair/CTO | Members | ||||||
| Woody Beeler | Regrets | Lorraine Constable | x | Grahame Grieve | David Hay (FMG) | ||
| x | Dave Shaver | x | Ewout Kramer | Regrets | Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) | Ron Parker | |
| x | John Quinn | ||||||
| observers/guests | x | Calvin Beebe | |||||
| x | Anne W., scribe | ||||||
Agenda
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20150309 FGB concall
- Action Item review:
- Lorraine to reach out to Calvin regarding FGB service
- Lloyd to discuss HSI WG content issue with FMG
- Further discussion/review of draft of precepts
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- Conformity Assessment
Minutes
- Called to order at 4:07 pm
- Minutes reviewed and approved by general consent.
- Agenda: no additions or subtractions
- FMG update: must decide this week what to do about FHIR ballot; potential to delay due to lack of readiness. ON the other hand, the iterative process makes it hard to determine if it’s truly necessity. Argonaut do not want any significant delay based on arbitrary quality rules. FMG aren’t very impressed by that and want to stick to process, although that is more defensible on normative rather than DSTU. What role does FGB have in this decision? Grahame is looking for governance input from FMG. What do we want to do about ballot schedule – do we improve depth/readiness of ballot vs. make formal progress with what we have? Issue of process is creating conditions that we haven’t had before. There is constant feedback coming in and it will continue to do so whether or not the ballot goes forth. Process questions from the draft for comment ballot and its reconciliation before we go ahead with the DSTU. Ewout – can we put a stake in the ground? If we want to do the DSTU, we just need to decide despite the constant evolution. Identify a number of new features that we want to introduce and determine if we have enough documentation to do in DSTU. Grahame: 2 running things: 1) committees are in uncertain state with the general task list, such as reconciliation, and 2) specific, unresolved issues around workflows – requests, order response – that are known not to be ready. Lloyd thinks we should hold off for four weeks and resolve them. The concern of FMG is that the next ballot is supposed to be normative and if we rush out the DSTU we may not be able to go normative next time. Going from DSTU1 to DSTU2 – issues of merging together. What is the pressure to do either of the choices? DSTU 2 or internal sync point and do DSTU later? What’s to keep us from doing DSTU3? Real pressure is that world wants the normative standard done. Grahame states they just want something stable they can implement. Worst outcome is to back away from doing DSTU2, because then input becomes theoretical vs. practical. Ewout – we need to put a stake in the ground to get people to the new version. Dave summarizes that the general feeling is that an incomplete DSTU would be preferable to waiting another cycle? General agreement. Dave will draft statement as such and post on Skype.
- Calvin Beebe is present on the call and will be listening as he gets up to speed.
- Precepts document: last time we had Ken on the call and he thought the document was perhaps redundant. Lorraine stated that it was to put our management in context. Suggestion to email version that has been edited and send it out for next week’s agenda. Lorraine will be out for the next two meetings but may discuss in her absence.
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.
