20160111 FMG WGM

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 14:09, 14 January 2016 by Annewiz (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Plaza International Ballroom I

Date: 2016-01-11
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs 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 x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke Brian Pech


  • Roll Call
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Dedicated FHIR testing page
    • Need to provide feedback to TSC on use of Gforge for voting
    • Connectathon process
    • Education
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


  • Guests – Grahame Grieve, Lorraine Constable, Chris Grenz, Ewout Kramer, Ken McCaslin, Kevin Sheckleton,
  • Item for future agenda: where/how test scripts should fit into FMM Criteria
  • Minutes from last week’s call reviewed
    • MOTION to approve minutes by Josh; second by Brian Post.
    • VOTE: John M. and Hans abstain; remaining in favor
  • Discussion Topics:
    • Grahame has a new role as FHIR Product Director
      • FGB took motion to recommend to TSC that the mission and charter for FMG/FGB be revised to change the ex-officio position that’s currently the CTO to become the FHIR product director. Discussion over actual linkage to TSC; Ken states that the CTO reported to EC and then there would be no TSC linkage. Ken’s opinion is that it’s not a good idea; that the CTO should stay on the FMG and FGB. The product director is reporting to the EC which gives additional communication thread within the organization. Lloyd states that the motion was made in FGB, so that recommendation will go to TSC and the TSC can say they want the missions and charters to remain; they can say they are comfortable with the motion; or they can say both can be ex-officio members. Hans: would CTO still be on FGB? Lloyd: proposal was to have the product director take over the ex-officio role over on both groups. Lloyd states they want the product director to have an ex-officio role. Hans: What if product director is just on FMG? CTO is TSC and EC. Ken: one other issue is that the membership is decided by FMG, proposed to CTO, and then brought to TSC. If CTO is not on this group then who will fill that role? Lloyd hopes the TSC will consider adding the product director to FGB. Ken: I believe that FMG’s membership is driven by FMG and TSC confirms it. Lloyd; FGB makes recommendations for membership for FMG and FGB and sends to TSC. He continues that they want TSC to approve changes to missions and charters for both FMG and FGB. Ken has no problem with adding the product director, but disagrees with removing CTO. Grahame affirms that he feels his role should have a place on both FMG and FGB.
    • Ewout: Can FMG/FGB alternate Monday Q0? Will discuss on Thursday
    • Update from TSC and membership renewal: TSC voted to renew all terms that were up for renewal
    • Summary from Sunday Q4 meeting
      • Proposal deadlines for resources/Connectathon tracks are to be in no later than 2016-02-09 (three weeks post WGM). Looked at new email reports. Solicited feedback on ballot process – didn’t get anywhere but will continue this week. Talked about build validation changes and timelines. Two weeks (1/31) we will change the process which will cause the build to fail; WGs will have time to make changes. Need to set maturity metric targets for their resources. 2.1 ballot timeline was discussed – May would mean freeze on 3/13; September freeze would be 7/17. If we do 3.0 in September instead, WGs should think about where they’re at with content. Also discussed FHIR liaisons and asked for feedback on liaison program. Are soliciting feedback from WGs as to whether we should go with 2.1 or 3.0.
    • Connectathon process feedback
      • Lloyd reports that there were 126 people signed up with room for 120 and at times it was standing room only. Minimal entry level questions – level of sophistication has increased. Feedback: Might be nice to have a story linking the different tracks to lend a degree of crossover. Still challenging for someone new to Connectathon what kind of preparation they should do in advance; may need to develop a checklist of current guidance. It might be useful to have a breakout room so tracks could take time to have discussion that doesn’t distract others. Could provide guidance for expectations on connectivity. Feeling that there needs to be a degree of stability around the tracks for long term planning purposes for attendees. Tracks might vary somewhat but standard themes could be beneficial. Warning that we should expect lots of folks (150-175 ppl) in Baltimore. Numbers will likely shrink somewhat for Montreal. Ewout heard suggestions about having two wireless mics and that speakers should be instructed in the basics of presentation. Brian Post mentions tighter timekeeping. Josh felt presentations were not ideal. Hard to see/hear. Grahame states it was better than the time before, but questions the value of presentations in the Connectathon. Two or three minute summary from the track lead could be enough. Make sure track leads are clear about the goals. Chris suggests having a place where people can view demos or slide shares in advance and/or after the event. Kevin liked the themed tables. Suggests several rooms; Grahame states he didn’t care for that in Paris. Lloyd will look into an overflow room with Lillian. Discussion over test script requirements. Intention is to have them available for each of the tracks. Could penalize those without test scripts in terms of FMM level. Will discuss how mandatory test scripts are before next Connectathon. Ewout: someone said they had an experiment they were doing with FHIR; how do we reach out to others? Ewout suggested putting it on implementers channel, etc. Lloyd states that they’re hoping Zulip will be up and running by next time which will provide a ready form of sharing. Ewout is not convinced that the presentations are not valuable; the issue seems to be quality.
    • Update on Zulip:
      • Working with potential provider of server with backup solution – should know more this week. Would like to transition to Zulip as soon as we can.
  • Items for future agenda that we didn’t get to today:
    • Need to provide feedback to TSC on use of Gforge for voting
    • Dedicated FHIR testing page
    • Education
  • Adjourned at 1:44 pm

Next Steps

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

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2015 Health Level Seven® International