This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2017-11-29 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2017-11-29 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 | ||
| Paul Knapp | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| x | Rik Smithies | ||
| Sandy Stuart | |||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-11-15_SGB_Conference_Call
- Action Items
- Paul to ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message
- Paul to verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- All: Further review of mixed ballot content precept on 2017-11-29 call
- Anne to add review of edited Product Life Cycle document to TSC agenda
- Complete; TSC ran out of time this week.
- Discussion Topics
- Review of definition of "Standards Under Review (SUR)" definition from the Standards Privacy Impact Assessment
- Mixed ballot precept
- Precept implementation strategy
- Backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families
- Parking Lot
- Review GOM with respect to where SGB and precepts should be reflected
- Review Publishing M&C updates regarding dual roles
- How do we deal with making sure that WGs involve those whose content domain they’re touching? (CIMI and Pharmacy and Lab models)
- Review Mission and Charter
- Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Levels of standards
- Separation of concerns
- Ownership of content
- ISM
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2017-11-15_SGB_Conference_Call
- Approved via general consent
- Action Items
- Paul to ask Vocab to approve a motion that it was the WG’s intention in R3 for the Expansion profile to be balloted as STU. If PA has not documented approval, send them the same message
- Paul to verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- All: Further review of mixed ballot content precept on 2017-11-29 call
- Anne to add review of edited Product Life Cycle document to TSC agenda
- Complete; TSC ran out of time this week.
- Discussion Topics
- Mixed ballot precept:
- This precept supports HL7 ballots where content within the balloted specification is to be assessed at different ballot levels, including normative, STU, informative and comment (draft). Under ANSI requirements, a change in scope for a normative ballot is a substantive change; therefore, all artifacts within a normative ballot pass and fail together.
- Ballot materials and the included elements must be clearly identified as to whether they are included in the ballot pool, and if so, the ballot level of each.
- One or more ballot pools may be established for each ballot level as needed. Each of the ballot pools may refer to common material under ballot. The ballot level must be clearly indicated on each element of the specification.
- MOTION to approve: Wayne/Tony
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Anne to add to precepts
- Precept implementation strategy
- Need to post and autogenerate reminders/updates. Should identify new ones at the cochair dinner. Need multiple channels. Does this involve the TSC as well? Implementation sounds like a TSC activity. Need to request that it is on the agenda for Saturday.
- ARB reviewed a request for external content review for the next release of the structured product label material. All the material is on a non-HL7 website. Two core problems: a) material has not been HL7-ized; it was 100% externally developed by the FDA; b) it was submitted as excel with images of the RMIMs and DMIMS, and a set of HMDs and schema, none of which can be used in our publication process for V3. ARB kicked it back.
- ARB also reviewed the RDAM PSS. It is a fundamental addition to our methodology, and everything is US focused but they want it to be universal. ARB and EST need to be involved. Core question is when we come up with something that is a fundamental methodology change, can that come specifically from a WG or project team without being discussed with the appropriate methodology group or the TSC. Should be a requirement for ARB to review anything that impacts fundamental methodologies. The issue for SGB is do we have to change something in our approach? It is so large that we can't treat this as a WG project - needs a separate path. It looks like they're trying to create a product family management group to manage the domain analysis models. Should develop a precept separating this kind of thing from our other types of projects. ARB states it needs broader discussion than occurs in a normal scope approval process. Needs to go to TSC earlier to approve the concept before it goes further.
- ACTION: Add to TSC leadership call agenda
- Review of definition of "Standards Under Review (SUR)" definition from the Standards Privacy Impact Assessment
- The project is trying to get everybody to apply privacy and security assessments to their projects; trying to make a methodology change in how people develop standards. Should be Standards Under Development rather than review. We don't follow the W3C Specification Under Review process.
- ACTION: Anne to send this out with the original request to the SGB list.
- The project is trying to get everybody to apply privacy and security assessments to their projects; trying to make a methodology change in how people develop standards. Should be Standards Under Development rather than review. We don't follow the W3C Specification Under Review process.
- Backwards compatibility consistency and definition across families
- Carry forward
- Mixed ballot precept:
- Lorraine out next week.
- Adjourned at 11:00 am Eastern
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
