Difference between revisions of "2018-01-17 FMG concall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 70: Line 70:
 
*Action items
 
*Action items
 
**Lloyd to run artifact name algorithm past Wayne and Grahame as far as best way to engage with TSC
 
**Lloyd to run artifact name algorithm past Wayne and Grahame as far as best way to engage with TSC
 +
***Complete
 
**Lloyd will send a note to Austin and Wayne to have FHIR path/FMG scope issue discussed by TSC
 
**Lloyd will send a note to Austin and Wayne to have FHIR path/FMG scope issue discussed by TSC
 +
***Complete
 
*Review Items
 
*Review Items
 
**[https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/14404/16089/BSSR%20PSS%20DRAFT%20V5%201-1-18.docx Bidirectional Social Services Referrals (BSSR) PSS]
 
**[https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/14404/16089/BSSR%20PSS%20DRAFT%20V5%201-1-18.docx Bidirectional Social Services Referrals (BSSR) PSS]

Latest revision as of 21:55, 23 January 2018

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2018-01-17
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Lorraine Constable,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve x Arunkumar Srinivasan, Sandy Vance, Richard Ettema, Amol Vyas, John Loonsk

Agenda

  • Discussion
    • Formalizing policies around resources in ballots that don't have resource proposals in place
    • Maturity of resources approaching normative
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call
    • Guests: Arunkumar Srinivasan, Sandy Vance, Richard Ettema, Amol Vyas
  • Agenda Check
    • Add maturity of resources approaching normative
    • MOTION to accept: Lloyd/Brian Post
  • Minutes from 2018-01-10_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Brian Post/Josh
    • VOTE: Josh abstains. Remaining in favor.
  • Administrative
  • Action items
    • Lloyd to run artifact name algorithm past Wayne and Grahame as far as best way to engage with TSC
      • Complete
    • Lloyd will send a note to Austin and Wayne to have FHIR path/FMG scope issue discussed by TSC
      • Complete
  • Review Items
    • Bidirectional Social Services Referrals (BSSR) PSS
      • John Loonsk and Arunkumar Srinivasan here to present PSS. Was approved by US Realm on the 9th. John gives an overview of the project. Lloyd: Is your FHIR IG going to be document-specific, or will it support the exchange of the information over other paradigms? John: I think we're open to other paradigms. Lloyd: Be aware that your timeline will be influenced by the resources becoming normative. John: We understand the problem. David suggests looking at the workflow stuff that's in FHIR. Section 5 should just have "IG will be created" checked, not "revise current standard."
        • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/Grahame
        • VOTE: All in favor
  • Discussion
    • Formalizing policies around resources in ballots that don't have resource proposals in place
      • Lloyd: There was some angst around the fact that we had resources in ballot, even though it's for comment, that are marked as draft that have not gone through or been approved by FMG. In looking at the content, balloters felt that the material was of questionable quality. The concern is that having such content in the spec lowers the overall quality. We have a long history of doing this, all the way back to the first ballot. We have markings of draft and maturity levels specifically to guide people's expectations, but we haven't formally documented what the expected process is. We've allowed WGs to create and submit a proposal before they do the resource, and other times they create it and work with it before we talk about making any decisions on the proposal. Sometimes the material goes through a couple of cycles before we decided it's settled enough around its scope and appropriateness before we approve it. But we haven't written that down, and there are some expectations that nothing should show up in the ballot without an approved resource proposal. We should make the expectations clear. David: So there is a process. Was the issue that stuff just appeared without even going through the initial step? Lloyd: Anybody who has committer privileges can submit. Sometimes we prune things and others we let through to try them out. Reviewed draft of process that Hugh Glover created in 2014. Lloyd: At minimum we should put together our expectations as FMG and run it past the community.
        • MOTION that for resources, profiles and implementation guides to reach maturity level 1, the FHIR Management Group must have approved the underlying resource/profile/IG proposal.
        • VOTE: All in favor
          • Grahame suggests that we should possibly have a two phase approval process - one that allows it to be put out for people to look at, and another to include in the spec. Discussion over what it would mean to add that process. Will discuss it at the town hall meeting during FMG in New Orleans.
          • ACTION: Lloyd to update Hugh's draft page and update it to include current process.
    • Maturity of resources approaching normative
      • Lloyd: We've been updating the quality requirements and making sure that the maturity levels apply to all conformance resources. Have vetted the quality criteria here and with the community with few comments. People are supposed to fill out a spreadsheet to document their adherence to the maturity metrics, but nobody has been paying any attention to that task. We have a situation where we have content that isn't declared to meet the requirements for FMM5 that is identified as candidate for normative, which runs contrary to the methodology that we had agreed to. There is no question that it is going to be a fair bit of work for WGs to go through and fill out the spreadsheet and provide the appropriate evidence that all the quality criteria has been met to qualify as FMM5. There are additional hoops for FMM6 that should also be added to the spreadsheet. Are we planning to wave that expectation, or are we going to enforce them despite the anguish? If we're going to enforce it, we need to give as much lead time as possible. If we're not going to enforce it, we need to figure out what our process should actually be and make sure we follow that. Brian Post notes that it was significant effort for PA to go through the process with their resources, but it was valuable. Lloyd notes that FHIR-I will have the most to do. Grahame: Maybe it would help if there was more visibility to the consumers. We could build a currency report for each resource into the specification. Lloyd: I wouldn't include it in the specification to use as a lever to get WGs to do work; if we include it in the spec it should be because there is value to the community to see that information. John: Isn't it built conceptually into the FMM? Lloyd: Conceptually, yes. Grahame: The community might find it interesting to know why something has the maturity it has. Lloyd: We could do a report of the asserted maturity level in the spec vs. the maturity levels in the spreadsheet; they could note the gap and we could state when the gap needs to be zero. Parts of the maturity model are substantive and others are non-substantive. If we're going to look at changing code descriptions and definitions, all of that has to be done by early April when we lock down content, whereas something like having sufficient examples can wait until October. John: We can't say lacking examples is going to be "get out of jail free." But we can say which ones are more likely to cause a change. Lloyd: Not hearing that we want to loosen quality criteria. Will have to be very clear with our communication in New Orleans. Also need to mark items in red so we can track them. Grahame: At this point we're kicking the can down the road and doing some research regarding how hard to push. Lloyd notes that FHIR core substantive change deadline is March 4th. In New Orleans we'll determine how much documentation we'll require by ballot freeze, by ballot opening, by September, and by publication.
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • Sandy reports that we have almost 200 registrants. 120 surveys have been returned and we have about 10 different track lead orientations scheduled. Have a number of orientation track slides to be posted to the wiki. Reports that the Applications for Imaging Research track is iffy on attendees and they are working to increase interest.
    • FGB
      • Lloyd reports that FGB is looking at amalgamating itself into SGB. SGB has a few slots open that FGB members can move into. Will mean a slight change in reporting relationships, as FMG has had a situation where the cochairs of the FGB and FMG have votes in each group; that won't be the same with the SGB. So liaison and reporting will be different.
    • MnM –
      • Did not meet.
    • FMG Liaisons
      • No report
  • Will hold a call next week for those able to attend. Will look at what came out of the ballot.
  • Adjourend at 5:16 pm Eastern

Next Steps

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

2018-01-24 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International