2016-01-20 FMG concall

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


(voice and screen)

Date: 2016-01-20
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke Brian Pech
x Eric Haas


  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20160110_FMG_FGB_WGM
  • Minutes from 20160111_FMG_WGM
  • Minutes from 20160114_FMG_FGB_WGM
  • Administrative
  • Action items
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Feedback to TSC on use of Gforge for voting
    • How do we support WGs to increase enthusiasm around a Connectathon
    • Is there a substitute for Connectathon in terms of FMM levels?
    • Should we count non-ballot comments in addition to ballot comments?
    • Metrics and mechanisms (who is implementing what and where)
    • Timetable for replacing Skype with Zulip
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


  • Called to order at 4:09 pm Eastern
  • Agenda review:
    • MOTION to accept by Lloyd; second by Josh
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • 2016-01-10 Minutes
    • MOTION to accept by Lloyd; second by Brian Post.
    • VOTE: Hans abstains; remaining in favor
  • 2016-01-11 minutes
    • MOTION to accept by Brian Post; second by Lloyd
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • 2016-01-14 minutes
    • MOTION to accept by Hans; second by Brian Post.
    • VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Feedback to TSC on use of Gforge: Lloyd has put together a preliminary report and is out to Grahame and a few others for review. Will bring back to FMG for review when initial review is completed. Will pass on to TSC after FMG approval and will close off initial trial process and hopefully move to official ongoing process. David: Are other WGs interested in using this as well? Lloyd: not sure. If it was to be expanded more broadly, some WGs that don't have a lot of technical expertise may have some challenges making the process work. One recommendation is looking at migrating to a different tool.
      • ACTION: put on agenda for next week to review draft report and think about whether we need to send out to FHIR and cochair lists for review and feedback before it goes to TSC.
    • How do we support WGs to increase vendor enthusiasm around a Connectathon: Brian Post: It's getting vendors to buy into something early with the knowledge they're going to have to fix it. David: Necessity to front up at a physical Connectathon to do it. Brian Post: If we get better visibility - maybe sharing some results, even if it's just screen shots and a blub. David: should this be the responsibility of the track lead? Group agrees. Lloyd: so put a consolidated report together or individual reports from each of the track leads? David: Individual reports. Lloyd: but how do we distribute? Group agrees on overall report with individual reports within and posted on wiki. Hans volunteers to put it together. Lloyd: do we want to prioritize the resources to say we want X resources accelerated on the FMG curve? Some WGs can't move all of their resources very quickly - would be helpful if we (or the implementer community) identified priorities. David: solution lies in coming up with a non-Connectathon way to move these forward. Brian: we've stated it doesn't have to be an HL7 WGM Connectathon. Hans: what would be a minimum requirement that we can recognize it as a contributing Connectathon? Lloyd: we said we expect that three independently developed systems that interoperate. Hans: does such activity have to happen in one place, or can they connect those organizations elsewhere? Lloyd: no requirement that they all be in the same building or even country. David: are there lessons from Argonaut that we could use? Josh: Argonaut is an ongoing process, rather than Connectathon which is point to point. Point made that Argonaut is funded, which makes a difference. Will ask people to write reports for this last Connectathon.
      • ACTION: David to start the wiki page for the sections and email people to fill them in; update the expectations of track lead to include post-Connectathon report.
      • ACTION: Anne to add continued discussion on topics for next week.
    • Is there a substitute for Connectathon in terms of FMM levels? Lloyd: If you have three implementers who are interoperating, that trumps the Connectathon requirement.
    • Counting non-ballot comments in addition to ballot comments for FMM level? Hans: ballot or non-ballot shouldn't matter. Lloyd: one concern is that we submit a lot of change requests on our own stuff; while that is a reflection of review, it's not necessarily reflection of external review. Someone could easily submit 10 comments on their own stuff. But not sure what the best way is to mitigate that. Hans: the only thing you know is if it results in substantive change or not. Lloyd: do we think that 10 comments are enough (with at least one resulting in substantive change)? Hans: that would work in lower FMMs, but would be increasingly difficult with higher FMMs. Lloyd: if we get the sense that someone is abusing the process, we can take appropriate measures.
    • MOTION to change FMM3 criteria to "has been subject to a round of formal balloting; has at least 10 distinct implementer comments recorded in the tracker drawn from at least 3 organizations resulting in at least one substantive change" by Lloyd; second by Brian Post.
    • VOTE: all in favor
      • ACTION: Add potential changes to FMM 2 criteria for next week's agenda. Brian Post states he's uncomfortable taking the Connectathon term out as it is open sharing. Lloyd isn't sure what "open" adds to it. Brian responds it lends transparency. Lloyd agrees that assertions of interoperability from a closed meeting aren't readily verifiable. This requirement isn't meant to be a super high bar; the focus here is "has anybody actually done this in code - is it more than a paper spec." We could say that the results have to be posted on the Wiki. Hans: if you want it to count, it should include a publicly available report. Proposed change would be "the artifact has been tested and successfully exchanged between at least three independently developed systems (in an implementation or at a Connectathon) whose results have been reported to and accepted by the FMG."
    • Metrics and mechanisms: how are we going to track what's going on so we can be confident with decisions such as normative. Could gather information from reference servers' audit logs.
      • ACTION: Anne to add back to agenda in a couple of weeks.
    • Timetable for replacing Skype with Zulip: that will be when FHIR.org comes up. Doesn't have limits on participants, and you can set up subthreads. Should also address blocking. Josh states there should be someone else who is involved with technical administration.
    • Grahame's ex officio position - with or without vote? Hans: any concern with him voting as an FMG member? Lloyd: he is getting paid by HQ, but there is precedent within EST for the HQ rep to have a vote on the grounds that they are significantly impacted. Same argument could be made here. Hans: you can argue for certain decisions that you do want them to vote and others you do not. Hans suggests voting privileges on FMG but perhaps not on FGB.
    • MOTION by Hans that we recommend to TSC that the FHIR Product Director Ex Officio has a full vote on FMG; second by Lloyd.
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Next week:
    • Dealing with warning messages that people would like to be ignored
    • Resource proposals - how can we accelerate review
    • Connectathon/FMM3
  • Adjourned at 5:28 PM Eastern

Next Steps

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

2016-01-27 FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International