This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "2016-12-14 SGB Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 74: Line 74:
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
−
*Review minutes of [[2016-12-07 SGB Conference Call]]
+
*Review minutes of [[2016-12-07SGB Conference Call]]
−
**MOTION to approve: Rik/Austin
 
−
**VOTE: All in favor
 
 
*Action Items:  
 
*Action Items:  
 
**Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
 
**Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
−
***Discussed with Andy yesterday.  He is working through requirements from Calvin. EST and ARB are at the same time right now. Issue is moving along.
 
 
**Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
 
**Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
−
***Add for next call
 
 
**Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
 
**Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
−
***Add for next call. Do we wish to try to get a handle on it for all of the subgroups? If groups have formal subgroups, we should have some way of knowing those things exist. Lorraine notes they're not all formal. Could go through call list to see who is holding calls. Wayne: We should have a registry of these. Lorraine: Not all subgroups do minutes or votes - they're just preparing material and getting work done and then reporting back to the WG. Should there be a precept regarding subgroups? Paul: If they're a standing committee, we should know where they are and what they're doing. Lorraine: Some of them come and go.
 
 
**Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
 
**Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
−
***Complete
 
 
**Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
 
**Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
−
***Complete
 
 
**Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
 
**Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
−
***Wayne is taking to PIC
 
 
*Discussion Topics
 
*Discussion Topics
 
**Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
 
**Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
 
***Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
 
***Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
−
****Came up in TSC this week because of an issue with a ballot for this cycle that considered moving from STU to comment at the last minute. Calvin describes background. Lorraine: Once ballot opens there are few options.  Paul: Couldn't you stand something down at any point up to publication? Lorraine: Not during the ballot. Calvin: This issue is at the cusp of starting the ballot. Paul: So you could do it then or immediately before publication. Austin: Bringing it down is punishing the group that's ready. Calvin: Thinking right now within Structured Documents is, regarding V3, is WGs will do separate work/ballots and then bring them together.  Several precept issues:
 
−
****Question of can we take an STU and turn it into informative and by who and at what checkpoint
 
−
*****Wayne: Must make changes before it goes to Lynn for final content deadline. Lorraine states the GOM says you can pull material mid-ballot. Discussion over ballots with mixed content. Austin: We can conduct ballots of separate pieces of content. Calvin: We need to take a look at the underlying precepts that describe how things work. Austin: I see a path for moving to informative but not some of the other directions. Paul: Once a ballot if open, the only option should be pull it. Calvin: Also, who makes that call? Austin: One provision in the GOM is if you fail to meet quorum at the end, the WG has flexibility in extending the ballot or treating it as draft for comment. Calvin: We need to move from precedent to precepts.
 
−
*****Will define precept in San Antonio.
 
−
*****Precept of separation: Any artifact which must have its own ballot level must be balloted with the scope of content clearly designated. Will continue to work on this precept in San Antonio.
 
−
***Lorraine: Related topic is TSC is going to have to come back around to the question about communicating our rules about where we take votes. Paul: On FMG, we were looking at who hadn't resolved their tracker items and discovered that there were tracker items assigned to "project." That brought up the issue that some projects are voting on the tracker items/ballot resolutions rather than committees, and these projects may be external. Paul raised the issue that using that same ballot machinery we could have HL7 ballots and ballots from other people. Who gets to determine what the content or the outcome of that is going to be? Lorraine: In this case it is an OO project that SDC is working on. Are these all HL7 ballots? Need a process where we can have non-HL7 ballots that we use our machinery for. Could be revenue-generating, perhaps. HL7 ballots must follow HL7 process even if they are "projects." Will be discussing on TSC on Monday. Lorraine: For existing projects, the WG has to follow their existing DMP which in this case is review and approval. Lorraine: We do have a process for bringing forward affiliate content.
 
−
*ACTION: Anne to add Calvin's term discussion to 1/9 agenda
 
−
 
 
**ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
 
**ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
 
**Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
 
**Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
Line 108: Line 92:
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
 +
 +
 +
 
*Agenda review
 
*Agenda review
−
*Review minutes of [[2016-12-07SGB Conference Call]]
+
*Review minutes of [[2016-12-07 SGB Conference Call]]
 +
**MOTION to approve: Rik/Austin
 +
**VOTE: All in favor
 
*Action Items:  
 
*Action Items:  
 
**Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
 
**Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
 +
***Discussed with Andy yesterday.  He is working through requirements from Calvin. EST and ARB are at the same time right now. Issue is moving along.
 
**Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
 
**Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
 +
***Add for next call
 
**Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
 
**Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
 +
***Add for next call. Do we wish to try to get a handle on it for all of the subgroups? If groups have formal subgroups, we should have some way of knowing those things exist. Lorraine notes they're not all formal. Could go through call list to see who is holding calls. Wayne: We should have a registry of these. Lorraine: Not all subgroups do minutes or votes - they're just preparing material and getting work done and then reporting back to the WG. Should there be a precept regarding subgroups? Paul: If they're a standing committee, we should know where they are and what they're doing. Lorraine: Some of them come and go.
 
**Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
 
**Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
 +
***Complete
 
**Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
 
**Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
 +
***Complete
 
**Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
 
**Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
 +
***Wayne is taking to PIC
 
*Discussion Topics
 
*Discussion Topics
 
**Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
 
**Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
 
***Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
 
***Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
 +
****Came up in TSC this week because of an issue with a ballot for this cycle that considered moving from STU to comment at the last minute. Calvin describes background. Lorraine: Once ballot opens there are few options.  Paul: Couldn't you stand something down at any point up to publication? Lorraine: Not during the ballot. Calvin: This issue is at the cusp of starting the ballot. Paul: So you could do it then or immediately before publication. Austin: Bringing it down is punishing the group that's ready. Calvin: Thinking right now within Structured Documents is, regarding V3, is WGs will do separate work/ballots and then bring them together.  Several precept issues:
 +
****Question of can we take an STU and turn it into informative and by who and at what checkpoint
 +
*****Wayne: Must make changes before it goes to Lynn for final content deadline. Lorraine states the GOM says you can pull material mid-ballot. Discussion over ballots with mixed content. Austin: We can conduct ballots of separate pieces of content. Calvin: We need to take a look at the underlying precepts that describe how things work. Austin: I see a path for moving to informative but not some of the other directions. Paul: Once a ballot if open, the only option should be pull it. Calvin: Also, who makes that call? Austin: One provision in the GOM is if you fail to meet quorum at the end, the WG has flexibility in extending the ballot or treating it as draft for comment. Calvin: We need to move from precedent to precepts.
 +
*****Will define precept in San Antonio.
 +
*****Precept of separation: Any artifact which must have its own ballot level must be balloted with the scope of content clearly designated. Will continue to work on this precept in San Antonio.
 +
***Lorraine: Related topic is TSC is going to have to come back around to the question about communicating our rules about where we take votes. Paul: On FMG, we were looking at who hadn't resolved their tracker items and discovered that there were tracker items assigned to "project." That brought up the issue that some projects are voting on the tracker items/ballot resolutions rather than committees, and these projects may be external. Paul raised the issue that using that same ballot machinery we could have HL7 ballots and ballots from other people. Who gets to determine what the content or the outcome of that is going to be? Lorraine: In this case it is an OO project that SDC is working on. Are these all HL7 ballots? Need a process where we can have non-HL7 ballots that we use our machinery for. Could be revenue-generating, perhaps. HL7 ballots must follow HL7 process even if they are "projects." Will be discussing on TSC on Monday. Lorraine: For existing projects, the WG has to follow their existing DMP which in this case is review and approval. Lorraine: We do have a process for bringing forward affiliate content.
 +
*ACTION: Anne to add Calvin's term discussion to 1/9 agenda
 +
 
**ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
 
**ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
 
**Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
 
**Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
Line 125: Line 128:
 
**HL7 Glossary  
 
**HL7 Glossary  
 
**Review WG Health metrics on future call in relation to precept regarding minutes and reconciliation-related materials
 
**Review WG Health metrics on future call in relation to precept regarding minutes and reconciliation-related materials
−
 
  
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
 
===Meeting Outcomes===

Latest revision as of 21:17, 22 December 2016

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637

Date: 2016-12-14
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Regrets Calvin Beebe
Lorraine Constable
Russ Hamm
Tony Julian
Paul Knapp
Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
Rik Smithies
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Review minutes of 2016-12-07SGB Conference Call
  • Action Items:
    • Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
    • Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
    • Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
    • Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
    • Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
    • Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
      • Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
    • ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
    • Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
  • Parking Lot
    • HL7 Glossary
    • Review WG Health metrics on future call in relation to precept regarding minutes and reconciliation-related materials

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Review minutes of 2016-12-07 SGB Conference Call
    • MOTION to approve: Rik/Austin
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items:
    • Lorraine to coordinate with EST regarding old project on gathering comments
      • Discussed with Andy yesterday. He is working through requirements from Calvin. EST and ARB are at the same time right now. Issue is moving along.
    • Paul will pull together SGB precepts defined in recent meetings
      • Add for next call
    • Paul to raise issue of WG management of artifacts which must be retained to TSC
      • Add for next call. Do we wish to try to get a handle on it for all of the subgroups? If groups have formal subgroups, we should have some way of knowing those things exist. Lorraine notes they're not all formal. Could go through call list to see who is holding calls. Wayne: We should have a registry of these. Lorraine: Not all subgroups do minutes or votes - they're just preparing material and getting work done and then reporting back to the WG. Should there be a precept regarding subgroups? Paul: If they're a standing committee, we should know where they are and what they're doing. Lorraine: Some of them come and go.
    • Anne to add to precept list that the posting of minutes is a precondition to balloting or publishing specifications
      • Complete
    • Anne to add to TSC agenda a note that SGB notes that Child Health and Learning Health Systems are not publishing minutes
      • Complete
    • Send problem to TSC that to recommend that co-chairs "read the GOM" is not a successful approach to keep people appraised of our rules. Anne to add to agenda.
      • Wayne is taking to PIC
  • Discussion Topics
    • Identify the precepts relate to changing balloting level (Normative, STU, Informative) upon last minute quality check by Work Groups.
      • Take into consideration the associated check points / mile markers NIB, Committee Review & Vote, Ballot Submission etc.
        • Came up in TSC this week because of an issue with a ballot for this cycle that considered moving from STU to comment at the last minute. Calvin describes background. Lorraine: Once ballot opens there are few options. Paul: Couldn't you stand something down at any point up to publication? Lorraine: Not during the ballot. Calvin: This issue is at the cusp of starting the ballot. Paul: So you could do it then or immediately before publication. Austin: Bringing it down is punishing the group that's ready. Calvin: Thinking right now within Structured Documents is, regarding V3, is WGs will do separate work/ballots and then bring them together. Several precept issues:
        • Question of can we take an STU and turn it into informative and by who and at what checkpoint
          • Wayne: Must make changes before it goes to Lynn for final content deadline. Lorraine states the GOM says you can pull material mid-ballot. Discussion over ballots with mixed content. Austin: We can conduct ballots of separate pieces of content. Calvin: We need to take a look at the underlying precepts that describe how things work. Austin: I see a path for moving to informative but not some of the other directions. Paul: Once a ballot if open, the only option should be pull it. Calvin: Also, who makes that call? Austin: One provision in the GOM is if you fail to meet quorum at the end, the WG has flexibility in extending the ballot or treating it as draft for comment. Calvin: We need to move from precedent to precepts.
          • Will define precept in San Antonio.
          • Precept of separation: Any artifact which must have its own ballot level must be balloted with the scope of content clearly designated. Will continue to work on this precept in San Antonio.
      • Lorraine: Related topic is TSC is going to have to come back around to the question about communicating our rules about where we take votes. Paul: On FMG, we were looking at who hadn't resolved their tracker items and discovered that there were tracker items assigned to "project." That brought up the issue that some projects are voting on the tracker items/ballot resolutions rather than committees, and these projects may be external. Paul raised the issue that using that same ballot machinery we could have HL7 ballots and ballots from other people. Who gets to determine what the content or the outcome of that is going to be? Lorraine: In this case it is an OO project that SDC is working on. Are these all HL7 ballots? Need a process where we can have non-HL7 ballots that we use our machinery for. Could be revenue-generating, perhaps. HL7 ballots must follow HL7 process even if they are "projects." Will be discussing on TSC on Monday. Lorraine: For existing projects, the WG has to follow their existing DMP which in this case is review and approval. Lorraine: We do have a process for bringing forward affiliate content.
  • ACTION: Anne to add Calvin's term discussion to 1/9 agenda
    • ISM issue followup after joint meeting with ARB
    • Continue SGB risks document/glossary of terms
  • Parking Lot
    • HL7 Glossary
    • Review WG Health metrics on future call in relation to precept regarding minutes and reconciliation-related materials

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2016-12-14_SGB_Conference_Call&oldid=130389"