2016-05-13 SGB WGM Agenda

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes Location: Salon Kafka		Date: 2016-05-13 Time: 9:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator	Paul/Calvin	Note taker(s)	Anne

Attendee	Name
x	Calvin Beebe
x	Lorraine Constable
	Russ Hamm
x	Tony Julian
x	Paul Knapp
x	Austin Kreisler
	Wayne Kubick
x	Mary Kay McDaniel
	Ken McCaslin
x	Rik Smithies
no quorum definition

Agenda

• Housekeeping - meet on Wednesday 5/18?
• Agenda review
• Minutes from 2016-05-08_SGB_WGM_Agenda
• Action Items
  • Paul to touch base with CBCC at the WGM to better understand why the change to the SAIF IG project occurred
  • Review and Finalize SWOT
• Review of FHIR Tooling and Electronic Services Support PSS
• Discussion Topics
  • The role of management groups in terms of projects
  • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
  • CDA Product Family Formation
  • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
  • Role of Steering Divisions

Minutes

• Guests: Brian Pech, Guillaume Rossignol, Benoit Shoeffler, Mary Kay McDaniel
• At the beginning of the next quarter we’ll join HTA.
• Minutes
  • MOTION to approve by Lorraine; Austin seconds.
  • VOTE: Tony abstains. Remaining in favor.
• Housekeeping
  • Wednesday 5/18 call: Cancelled
  • Baltimore: Q3 on Sunday, Q1 and Q2 on Friday
• Action Items
  • Paul to touch base with CBCC at the WGM to better understand why the change to the SAIF IG project occurred
    • Paul spoke with Suzanne regarding why they changed; she stated that they changed the definition of what they intended to do, and with that the resources for doing the SAIF IG were limited. They weren’t against the concept. ARB discussed as well. ARB worked on a SAIF IG but it was not successful. It was determined that it wasn’t an ARB task and it was assigned to MnM where it stalled. May want to issue small pieces of guidance instead. SGB should be guided by SAIF principles. Discussion over FHIR logical models; unclear where the work is going on. Discussion regarding setting precepts and associated risk points. Helps them understand relationships with requirements traceability. Trying to make sure our standards are addressing the business requirements of our customers. Might want them to identify any new products they are proposing as well. PSSes could be part of the inventory, although some don’t fall strictly into a product family. The NIB may be a better point of capture. TSC and management groups need to determine the best place to do that. Must be transparent and accessible. Lorraine shows the BAM section of what management groups are responsible for. Should review this on an upcoming call. Would be good to have ISM guide by September; ARB will be tasked with creation. ARB will need to analyze what’s on their plate and prioritize.
    • ACTION: Anne to make new wiki page with precepts including 1) Product families shall define their classes of artifacts; 2) Product families shall define where in the canonical ISM (Interoperability Specification Matrix) grid their artifacts exist; 3) Product families shall inventory the products which are theirs. 4) Product families shall make the inventory transparent and accessible.
  • HTA governance with respect to FGB
    • One problem is there is a lack of transparency. Their calls, etc. are not public and there is a lack of responsiveness. Will raise this issue today. What from a business perspective is overlapping? It would be good if they came to us to tell us what rules they need. They deal with external vocabularies. Members of HTA are principally Vocabulary co-chairs and there has been some merging. We should be taking the role of organizing the complete stack of precepts for the development of standards. They may have a role in developing some precepts in terms of vocabulary. We need to have consistency so we need their business requirements and jointly work with them.
  • Review and Finalize SWOT
    • Reviewed changes made on Sunday.
    • MOTION to approved edited document by Lorraine; second by Austin.
    • VOTE: all in favor
    • ACTION: Paul to complete WGM Effectiveness Survey
• Review of FHIR Tooling and Electronic Services Support PSS
  • Discussion over whether FGB (or other governance groups) should be a primary sponsor. Defined issues to address regarding the PSS in a separate document (ANNE TO INSERT LINK).
• Q2: Met with HTA. Heather Grain states that HTA is trying to figure out how we move to one terminology and one tooling to support, as well as the use of international terminologies where they exist. Not sure how they need to relate to SGB. Paul states SGB is developing the precepts under which management groups operate. Will be releasing packages of precepts to management and methodology groups. The precepts are not getting into the details of “how.” Is there overlap between Vocab and HTA and SGB? HTA is currently providing vocabulary governance. Paul: your role is governance of content with respect to vocabulary; ours is how governance is structured and conveyed. SGB concern is not with the content. Discussion over how things will be communicated. SGB will set the general rules and roles. Discussion over existing Vocab/HTA projects that need SGB coordination. Agreement to meet to discuss. One already has a pub request going to TSC. Heather will send principles of terminology, the licensing document, and the document on currency. Need to figure out how SGB supports the HTA’s principles in precept fashion. We want to support the existing principles by applying rules. Need to understand the risks (including severity and likelihood) that are tied to the principles. Heather will gather the documents, develop risk statements, and send to SGB by SGB’s 2016-05-25 meeting with SGB review on 2016-06-01 meeting.
  • ACTION: Anne to send call details to HTA
• Discussion Topics
  • Review of FHIR Repository PSS, continued
    • Most items in the scope are either management or methodology. Confusing people with the roles they’re playing. FGB has an interest but should likely not be the lead. Wayne: to me this is a requirements analysis. No deliverable of a product. It’s management and governance. Lorraine: practically speaking FGB isn’t really the right space, but what difference would it make if we moved it to FMG, MnM or Attachments? Calvin: If we ask governance groups to go beyond governance issues, it creates problems. We set the wrong precedent of what governance is. The requirements need to be put together by a management group. Suggestion to move FMG to sponsor, FGB to cosponsor, add
    • MOTION that we make a recommendation to the TSC that the modifications that we made to the document be made to reflect the view of appropriate sponsorship based on separation of concerns and the governance framework by Lorraine. Second by Austin.
    • VOTE: All in favor
      • ACTION: Paul will contact Grahame and Ken to update him on the suggested changes; will also introduce to FMG on Wednesday.
  • The role of management groups in terms of projects
    • Should we have PSSes? We could have PSSes about the governance work that we’re doing. Management group should have PSSes about the management and production of standards in their ballot process. PSSes should conform to the scope of the organizational group that owns it.
  • Defining the role of product director - joint with ARB
  • CDA Product Family Formation
  • Further discussion on SGB Guidance on IG Conformance Statements (from 2016-02-22 TSC Call)
  • Role of Steering Divisions
  • FHIR Governance Board
• Adjourned at 12:40 PM Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Actions

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2016-05-25 SGB Conference Call

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved