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

2017-03-15 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2017-03-15
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Karen Van Hentenryck

no quorum definition


  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-08 SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Anne to send to substantive change definition to FTSD cochairs for review and comment on the definition to see if it covers what it should in respect to their domains.
    • ARB to follow up with PSS approvals for subst. change project
    • Anne to add to TSC agenda - SGB recommends to TSC that process changes which affect standards development should go to SGB for consideration and recommendation back to TSC.
      • May wish to update the informative document "HL7 Policy for Introducing New Processes Release 1.
    • Anne to reply to Richard re: Privacy Cookbook and ask where you've used SUR, do you intend for that to mean specification under review or specification under development, because SGB sees those as two different activities.
    • Calvin will make updates to ballot level transition and send to Anne for distribution to list and addition to Monday's TSC call.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Look at ANSI requirements and Essential Requirements and come up with a draft for an additional type of ballot comment disposition
    • SGB provider role recruitment - look at descriptions for FMG/FGB
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Mixed ballot content issue
  • Parking Lot
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ownership of content
    • Differentiation of groups that develop standards and those that don't


  • Agenda review
  • Review Minutes of 2017-03-08 SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Austin/Rik
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Discussion Topics
    • Look at ANSI requirements and Essential Requirements and come up with a draft for an additional type of ballot comment disposition
      • Heart of the issue is about coming up with a disposition on negatives to clearly indicate that it is deferred for future use. Karen: Is the intent to retain the not related and add another disposition for future use? Austin: That was our thinking. To make something unambiguous for future use to address the confusion over not related. Lorraine: The committees need for something that is related but not going to be addressed at this time. Wording is problematic.
      • Karen: There isn't an ANSI problem to add another disposition, but we'll have to get it signed off on by ANSI and change the essential requirements. Need to make sure that you provide a rationale for what you're doing.
      • Paul: For Future Consideration could be simple enough. Austin: It is currently only available for affirmatives - we would have to remove that restriction. Paul: We need to discuss what the expectations are on WGs for what it means when they use it - how long before they act on it, etc.
      • Lorraine: Problem is that the reason we constrained considered for future use to affirmatives is that we expected you would address all your negatives before you publish. We're trying to change that process a bit to be reactive to deadlines in a different way that we've done in the past.
      • Paul: What kind of turnaround time are we looking at with ANSI to make this change? Karen: It could be a couple of weeks or sometimes more. Paul: So we probably can't get it in the May ballot but we could for September.
      • For STUs there is a clear need and less concern around the issue. The question is, is it the same with Normatives? Or does everything have to be addressed with a Normative ballot? Austin: If we attempt to fine tune it to the level of ballot, people will remain confused. Lorraine: Publishing a normative spec without things being addressed is uncomfortable. Paul: What would be a legitimate reason to push it off? Wayne: Because it would mean a substantive change that requires reballot.
      • Lorraine: A feature request is different than a negative ballot against something that is broken. Different expectations around Normative status. Paul: But what would we be okay pushing off? Lorraine: Things that were pushed off last time were things that were controversial enough that agreement couldn't be reached on time. Discussion over ballots with mixed content. Wayne notes a bug in one person's eyes is a feature in someone else's eyes. May need a change in balloting procedure. ***Lorraine: We could make it easier and clearer for balloters to put forward a feature request as opposed to identifying something broken in the spec. Paul: In affirmatives, you're free to go ahead and publish, even if you disregard what they've said. The negative part means that you should not move forward with this thing without addressing this comment. It's negatives that hold the presses.
      • Lorraine: If we have negative comments that we haven't gotten around to sorting out, it doesn't seem like it should be normative. Rik: We're trying to say yes, we agree with your negative but we haven't got time currently to fix it - but if it's normative there may never be time. Lorraine: If you agree, it's usually easy to get done. It's the difficult ones that cause the problem. Austin: We've had CDA documents with these issues that are STUs. The idea is that by the time you've gotten to normative, you've ironed out these issues. C-CDA, when it goes to normative, it may be in this boat because there is pressure to make dramatic changes before it goes normative. Extreme pressure also not to change it.
      • Wayne: The answer varies on whether we're talking about STUs or Normative. Austin: But if we break it into two chunks there will still be confusion. Paul: Would be comfortable extending this through to STU because of their time-driven cycles. Would be inclined to disallow this for Normative. Austin: I would argue that education won't work in this case. Lorraine: If we make a distinction and people will be confused, how do we create checks and balances to catch them and direct them down the right path? ***Austin: We need a tool that enforces the rules. Our spreadsheet doesn't do that. Inappropriate dispositions against negatives are easy to do. Until we have a tool we'll have to accept the fact that people don't know how to do it correctly. Paul: Can we solve it with the a tool, or does that just hack off some of the issues? Lorraine: The tool allows us to enforce the policy, once we decide what the policy is. Paul: Is there some reason why we don't allow macros in the spreadsheet? Rik: They're difficult to email around.
      • Lorraine: Earlier spreadsheets had a constraint but it's hard to keep things consistent. We do have a project looking at making these things better. Paul: We could say that you can use this with STU and not Normative. Is it that we should block it so people can't use it, or should we allow it to be and put guidance on when it's appropriate? If someone says something is not persuasive and you think it is and you won' t remove your negative, you can go to ARB or TSC to argue the thing, or do a recirculation ballot.
        • Russ departs
      • Paul brings up concern about people saying they can't get to something, and then having it be overruled by a recirculation ballot. Lorraine: if it's at normative we shouldn't allow that. Paul: We could make a rule preventing overruling with a recirculation ballot, forcing the committee to consider the negative. How do we shut down the gaming of the system? Austin: If you're talking in terms of WGs using it to game their specs, we're not going to change that behavior. We need to make clear that guidance for using this is unambiguous.
      • Rik: Could we have it so the name of the disposition has something in it that makes it clear? Austin: We need to do that because people don't read the places where the rules exist. Lorraine: We need to add it into our tooling project.
      • Paul: Do we have two different types of considered for future use, and should we name them different things? One is it's persuasive but we don't have time to do it now, and the other is we simply haven't looked at this thing. Austin: One disposition could be "include in next release," which means we agree it's good and will be included in the next release. Paul: If the next release comes out and it isn't included, they can bring to TSC and say it can't be resolved with a recirculation. Lorraine: We shouldn't allow this at Normative level, so we don't need to worry about recirculation. Wayne: We need to separate product planning from ballot reconciliation.
      • Lorraine: The other piece is the ones where it's a long hard conversation and we haven't gotten through it yet - the issue is being deferred as opposed to the work. Lorraine: Rik's previous idea about consider for future STU might be appropriate here. Tony: The whole thing leaves it open then for dodging the whole issue. Rik: Perhaps something like captured or tabled for future STU. Something to indicate that it will be carried over.
      • ACTION: Consider terms and continue discussion next week
  • Paul/Lorraine may not be available next week
  • Adjourned at 11:02 pm Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved