20171107 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Management
   1. Mission and Charter Review - Due in fall WGM
   2. Decision Making Procedures review - due in fall WGM
5. Governance
6. Methodology
   • PHER Syndromic Surveillance Messaging Guide Dave Trepanier
   • HAVE project
   • FHIR Artifact Curation Process: (From Rene Spronk)
     • At the upcoming FHIR DevDays in Amsterdam i'll be presenting a talk about the "creation and curation of FHIR profiles, process & governance". I've collected the process / governance descriptions from a number of affiliates and other organisations that create or curate (i.e. the validation/vetting of profiles created by others) FHIR artifacts.
     • I asked Lloyd, and he states that the GOM does allow a third party to bring forward an artifact (e.g. en new FHIR resource, a profile) for inclusion in HL7's standard. Let's assume the "international society for peadiatrics" has defined a new FHIR resource or profile; they organize their own test events; dowzens of vendors have implemented it - and all of that without any official involvement of HL7 international. #**Now they bring this artifact to HL7.
     • What's the process ArB/TSC would follow in dealing with that artifact? Where would it end up? Would it have draft status within HL7, or will it have some higher maturity level because it has already been implemented/tested? Who will get to decide this?
     • (note that some affiliates face this issue regularly, so its not really a hypothetical question). If there are no answers to the above questions, if you were to speculate, how should the process look like ?

1. Other business and planning
   • Open issues
2. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ARB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: CCYYMMDD Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony/Constable, Lorraine	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony//Constable, Lorraine
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
.	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
.	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
.	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
.	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Kubick, Wayne	HL7 CTO
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
.	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
.	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
.	Nelson, Dale	Accenture
.	Grow, Richard	U.S. Department of Veterans affairs
.
Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Management
   1. Mission and Charter Review - Due in fall WGM
   2. Decision Making Procedures review - due in fall WGM
5. Governance
6. Methodology
   • PHER Syndromic Surveillance Messaging Guide Dave Trepanier
   • HAVE project
   • FHIR Artifact Curation Process: (From Rene Spronk)
     • At the upcoming FHIR DevDays in Amsterdam i'll be presenting a talk about the "creation and curation of FHIR profiles, process & governance". I've collected the process / governance descriptions from a number of affiliates and other organisations that create or curate (i.e. the validation/vetting of profiles created by others) FHIR artifacts.
     • I asked Lloyd, and he states that the GOM does allow a third party to bring forward an artifact (e.g. en new FHIR resource, a profile) for inclusion in HL7's standard. Let's assume the "international society for peadiatrics" has defined a new FHIR resource or profile; they organize their own test events; dowzens of vendors have implemented it - and all of that without any official involvement of HL7 international. #**Now they bring this artifact to HL7.
     • What's the process ArB/TSC would follow in dealing with that artifact? Where would it end up? Would it have draft status within HL7, or will it have some higher maturity level because it has already been implemented/tested? Who will get to decide this?
   • An HL7 WG would create an HL7 project to bring in the material.
   • ARB would review
     • the external content and the PSS to ensure the content is appropriate
     • verify that the appropriate WG's are engaged.
   • The material would come in as DRAFT and have to follow the established rules for maturity level.

1. • • (note that some affiliates face this issue regularly, so its not really a hypothetical question). If there are no answers to the above questions, if you were to speculate, how should the process look like ?

1. Other business and planning
   • Open issues
2. Adjournment

1. • An HL7 Work Group would create an HL7 project to bring in the material.
   • ARB would review
     • the external content and the Project Scope Statement to ensure the content is appropriate.
     • verify that the appropriate Work Groups are engaged.
   • The material would come in as DRAFT or STU and have to follow the established rules for balloting and maturity level.
   • The fact it has been implemented and tested outside of HL7 is no guarantee that it will test in HL7.