This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "2016-09-18 SGB WGM Agenda"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 74: Line 74:
|                                                          |
|                                                          |
*Guests: Karen Van Hentenryck, Mario Hyland
*Guests: Karen Van Hentenryck, Mario Hyland
*Agenda review
*Agenda review

Revision as of 18:58, 21 September 2016

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2016-09-18
Time: 1:45 PM 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
x Wayne Kubick
x Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
Brian Pech
Quorum: Chair + 4


  • Guests: Karen Van Hentenryck, Mario Hyland
  • Agenda review
  • Action Items
  • Discussion Topics
    • ANSI requirements
      • Karen here to discuss. What do they care about? Karen states only about normative. Anyone can comment. Members can do so for free; non-members pay. You have to consider the comments and respond to each. Do we have to have an announced comment period? Yes…you cut off ballot signup before it opens and ballot must be 30 days. Evidence must be kept so they can come and review – that’s what the ballot desktop is for. Are there requirements for how we conduct business between ballots? Do we have to have transparency? Yes, they can go back and ask for minutes to look for evidence of voting, etc. Will they audit that we have other minutes? Not really – that’s an HL7 requirement. Discussion over location of minutes. There has never been a requirement for the minutes of projects. Calvin notes levels of security at healthcare organizations are increasing and it is difficult for people in those environments to use sharing tools like Google docs, skype, etc.
      • Austin: If there is a requirement to match up reconciliation with minutes, it would be good to provide links to them with the spreadsheet. The critical one would be the vote to approve the package.
      • Discussion of how the different standards are using reconciliation tools and the various struggles – v2, FHIR, etc. For all ballots but FHIR, the spreadsheet is the good. For FHIR, it’s sucked into tracker and then they suck everything out of tracker and create the spreadsheet. Mario: Could things be missed? Yes, but that’s also possible with spreadsheets. The path from comment to resolution has to be traceable and verifiable. Austin: Plenty of WGs add new things in the spreadsheets which are the equivalent of tracker change requests.
      • Karen notes that the next ANSI audit is Fall 2017
      • Karen departs
      • Lorraine: FHIR process – less opportunity for people to check and validate. What is the best way to replace those manual checks and balances? Precept is that there is a way to trace and validate. Discussion that tracker is not part of the ANSI process – spreadsheets are ANSI process, but that tracker eventually feeds into the spreadsheet to satisfy the process. How do we assure that all of the items on the spreadsheet match what came in? Austin: FHIR is following a piloted alternative process approved by the TSC. Recent discussion has occurred regarding abandoning both spreadsheets and balloting entirely as other methods of review can be used to meet ANSI requirements. Can do comment process and incremental updates. Calvin: Does every product family have a different set of rules? Lorraine: The fewer differences we have, the better. Discussion over aggregate products and making sure WGs maintain a voice.
      • Lorraine; the precept is that we have a consistent way of communicating results. Group works on list of normative ballot precepts from the ANSI essential requirements.
  • Adjourned at 2:58 pm Eastern