20160114 FMG FGB WGM

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

Location: Plaza International Ballroom I

Date: 2016-01-14
Time: 3:30 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): Anne
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Calvin Beebe
John Quinn
FMG Co chairs David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp
Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech


  • Roll Call
  • Discussion Topics:
    • FHIR.org
    • Could FMG/FGB alternate Monday Q0?
    • March Freeze
    • ConceptMap change request (irrelevant if we don't do 2.1)
    • Other proposals for making changes to frozen resources
    • Timetable for replacing SkypeChat with Zulip
    • How is the liaison process working?
    • Metrics and Mechanisms (who is implementing what and where)
    • Need to provide feedback to TSC on use of Gforge for voting
    • Dedicated FHIR testing page

Minutes/Conclusions Reached

  • Called to order
  • Introductions
  • Lloyd chairing
  • Agenda review: definitely need to talk about March freeze, highlights from the week, FMG/FGB alternate Monday Q0, FHIR.org/Zulip
  • Discussion topics:
    • FHIR.org/Zulip: FHIR.org is the presence of FHIR Foundation and they both support implementation activities – registries, discussion forums, other supporting infrastructure, documentation, chat; whatever the board and community feel would be useful. FHIR Foundation will be the owner of FHIR.org. Grahame will be getting agreement from the Board and the community as a whole regarding governance topics. HL7 owns standards development and this will support implementation. Zulip will be hosted on FHIR.org site, although the transition will happen before FHIR.org is up and running. Paul: Could HQ meet with TSC, because there is insufficient information regarding this at that level. Grahame spoke to the EC about this on Sunday; the content should have come to TSC. Paul: It has not gone to TSC. Lorraine: SGB and ARB are going to discuss the role of the product director which will circle back to TSC. Grahame describes his own developing position description. Will discuss in SGB tomorrow. Regarding TSC communication, we will discuss best way to handle that at TSC meeting.
    • Highlights:
      • OO from Hans: Concern that we have a number of pending resource proposals that aren’t approved. Need to make sure that the corresponding materials are moved or marked. Lloyd: if they are comfortable with them appearing, they would appear as draft. If they aren’t approved, we’ll have to make a case by case evaluation of whether or not they will appear. March freeze: OO felt they would have to aim for the next one (September). Whether it is 2.1 or 3.0 doesn’t matter much to OO – they are more interested in timing.
      • Ewout: Gforge…people say it’s not their favorite but it is better than the excel sheet. Everyone applauds having a ticketing system. Pharmacy is feeling overloaded and are having trouble fixing all of the errors. If we stick with Jan 31/Feb 7 they will go back to FMM0. Hans: We need to figure out how to get other people to move into gforge so all comments are being submitted there. Lloyd: this was an experiment to see if it would work for all groups, not just FHIR. Ewout: PA will make all of the deadlines. FMG liaison process – responses were extremely varied from satisfaction with the program to no knowledge of the program. ACTION: Anne add to next call - WGs that have low vendor engagement at meetings or calls, how do we support them to increase enthusiasm around a Connectathon? Many having trouble reaching FMM2 because of the Connectathon requirement. ACTION: Anne add to agenda 1) is there a substitute for Connectathon in terms of FMM levels and 2) should we count non-ballot comments in addition to ballot comments.
      • Lloyd: FHIR Workflow has made a reasonable amount of progress. Felt that March was really optimistic to have workflow stuff landed; July much more feasible. Possible new resource coming out of Patient Care to support linking equivalent resources. RCRIM has started the process of doing resources. Most WGs were more comfortable with July timeline; however, indication that we should have some sort of May deadline to encourage continued development of content.
      • Paul Knapp: With respect to timing, FM would be comfortable moving to September. Would like to see it be a 3.0 instead of 2.1. Lloyd: Extensions was discussed in FHIR-I. Intention is to send a post to let people know what options we’ve been able to come up with and associated pros and cons. None of the alternatives were more appealing than what we have right now. Paul: Is the expectation that the identifier on resources is unique to that instance? Expectation is that they are just as unique to that instance as social security numbers are to medical records. Yes, but it isn’t a given. Several circumstances where you could end up with multiple identifiers.
      • John Moehrke: February 7th would be tough. Discussion over changes to resources; only errors will be changed and people would be notified in that event. Consent still has issues; none of the cochairs can make it out of the country so no progress will be made in May. Lloyd states there needs to be a core structure that is not an IG that says how Consent is done. Grahame says we should refer to the TSC that the committee is not intending to meet and cannot make progress. John: gforge is preferable to spreadsheets. One issue in gforge is keeping accounts current/unlocked; the other issue is repeated change proposals being issued for the same issue. Lloyd suggests remedies for the issue. John’s last issue is that it’s not clear how one addresses profiles and IGs – who owns it, how to I record a complaint against it. Lloyd: any core profile needs to have endorsement from the WG in order to live there.
      • Lloyd summarizes that a few don’t care about the deadline, but those who do prefer July over March. A few people have preferred a 3.0 instead of a 2.1, although most don’t care. If we published a full release around the end of this year instead of the end of next year, would that cause issues? Group responds no. Does anyone want to speak against us scheduling a 3.0 ballot for September with content due in mid-July?
    • MOTION to schedule a 3.0 ballot for September with content due in mid-July by Hans. Second by Brian Pech.
    • VOTE: All in favor. (8/0/0)
    • FMG/FGB alternate Monday Q0 – proposal would be that there’s a Q0 FGB on Monday and an FMG lunch on Monday that we could alternate. Group discusses and decides to table it until more members of FGB can weigh in.
    • Liaison process:
      • Let people know that if they have something they should reach out to their liaison and invite to call. John Moehrke suggests more regular internal communication, such as a blog. Lorraine: we need to mature our communications strategy. Lack of people to execute.
    • Dedicated FHIR testing page:
      • proposal is to do something similar to what we did with profiling.
      • MOTION by Hans to move forward. Second by Paul.
      • VOTE: all in favor
  • Outstanding issues for next call:
    • Metrics and Mechanisms (who is implementing what and where)
    • Need to provide feedback to TSC on use of Gforge for voting

Next Steps

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

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International