Difference between revisions of "2018-04-04 SGB Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 39: Line 39:
 
|Regrets || Calvin Beebe
 
|Regrets || Calvin Beebe
 
|-
 
|-
| ||Lorraine Constable
+
|x ||Lorraine Constable
 
|-
 
|-
| || Russ Hamm
+
|x || Russ Hamm
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Regrets || Tony Julian  
 
|Regrets || Tony Julian  
 
|-
 
|-
||| Paul Knapp
+
|x|| Paul Knapp
 
|-
 
|-
 
||| Ewout Kramer
 
||| Ewout Kramer
Line 51: Line 51:
 
|Regrets || Austin Kreisler
 
|Regrets || Austin Kreisler
 
|-
 
|-
| || Wayne Kubick
+
|x || Wayne Kubick
 
|-
 
|-
| || Thom Kuhn
+
|x || Thom Kuhn
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || Ken McCaslin
 
| || Ken McCaslin
 
|-
 
|-
| || Rik Smithies
+
|Regrets || Rik Smithies
 
|-
 
|-
| || Sandy Stuart
+
|x || Sandy Stuart
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 110: Line 110:
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
 +
*Agenda review
 +
*Approve Minutes of [[2018-03-28_SGB_Conference_Call]]
 +
**Further discussion over SOA PSS from last week. Point is to put products in a framework so people can see how they fit together and the relationships. Discussion over whether it should be called an architecture since it's not designing anything.
 +
***MOTION to accept: Thom/Sandy
 +
***VOTE: All in favor
 +
*Action Items
 +
**Paul to address WG approval of ballot content and level at FMG
 +
***Paul did discuss with FMG to get clarity. The way that FHIR does it is that content that is either at draft or STU always ballots. The WG indicates through QA spreadsheet whether or not a resource is production ready. If it's ready, it's STU, and if it's not it's comment. Lorraine notes some groups do also vote within their WGs. Lorraine states we should have a precept that the WG responsible for the material determines if it is ready for ballot. Paul: The other thing that FMG does is that, while there is a requirement to get FMG approval on a resource, the approval isn't required until post-FMM1.  Normative content is different and more stringent, and will possibly be continuous. Need to consider the notion between the two.  Lorraine: There is also the issue of the votes to move to STU, which Paul is still chasing. Lloyd has expressed the they don't want to do reaffirmations, so that would mean continuous balloting - need to consider ramifications of that.
 +
****ACTION: Anne to make sure the WG approval item is back in actions
 +
****ACTION: Add normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR to upcoming agenda
 +
**Tony to put ISM information Confluence/Calvin to make some examples of how to use the ISM using CDA
 +
**Anne to add "role of architecture in standards development process" to TSC agenda in Cologne
 +
**Anne to send CDAMG call for volunteers to Andrea for distribution
 +
***Complete
 +
**Anne to send V2MG Mission and Charter document back to PLA
 +
***Complete
 +
****ACTION: Anne to send out V2MG M&C today on e-vote with any needed discussion on Monday.
 +
****ACTION: Anne to draft V2MG invitation email and send to SGB for review
 +
*Discussion Topics
 +
**From TSC: Review of [https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/15818/16415/Investigative-Study%20HL7%20RDAM%20PSS%202018-03-08%20DRAFT2.docx Investigative RDAM PSS]/how we deal with approval processes for projects that have an impact on our overall methodology
 +
***RDAM has an aspect of this, CIMI, and other things as well. Concerns are the work that can come in trying to embrace a new idea, where the new idea may be of great interest to those proposing it with fewer perceived values to the rest of the organization but ends up affecting the whole organization. Lorraine: While this isn't proposing a new product, it is proposing something new to the organization. Should practice using our new product evaluation from the DAM on it, or a similar adapted approach?
 +
***Reviewed BAM. Need list of tasks with their intention, and who will complete the tasks. Need to answer fundamental questions at the business level. What problem will the product solve? Is the problem known? Is the focus on the solution or on ridding oneself of the problem? Is the organization ready/what impact on the organization?  As things stand, we're presented a solution as the starting point instead of having people come forward with a problem to discuss solutions. Historically, we've been bad at saying no. We need to clarify a decision making process on whether we say yes or not. Should be easier for the TSC or MGs to evaluate the work.
 +
****Next week: Look at definitions of each activity in step 1 of the BAM and boil it down into a task list.
 +
**Review [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Artifact_Governance_Process FHIR artifact governance process]
 +
**Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
 +
**Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
 +
**Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
 +
**Review Mission and Charter
 +
**Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
 +
**Technical Alignments Between Product Families
 +
**How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
 +
**Precept on bringing in large projects
 +
**Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
 +
**Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
 +
**[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=List_of_Precepts_Under_Development '''Precepts We Need to Develop''']
  
  

Latest revision as of 21:02, 9 April 2018

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538465637

Date: 2017-04-04
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name


Regrets Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
Regrets Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
Ewout Kramer
Regrets Austin Kreisler
x Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
Regrets Rik Smithies
x Sandy Stuart
Quorum: Chair + 4

Agenda

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-03-28_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • Paul to address WG approval of ballot content and level at FMG
    • Tony to put ISM information Confluence/Calvin to make some examples of how to use the ISM using CDA
    • Anne to add "role of architecture in standards development process" to TSC agenda in Cologne
    • Anne to send CDAMG call for volunteers to Andrea for distribution
      • Complete
    • Anne to send V2MG Mission and Charter document back to PLA
      • Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • From TSC: Review of Investigative RDAM PSS
    • Review FHIR artifact governance process
    • Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
    • Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
    • Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
    • Review Mission and Charter
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Technical Alignments Between Product Families
    • How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
    • Precept on bringing in large projects
    • Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
    • Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
    • Precepts We Need to Develop
  • Parking Lot
    • BAM guidance on process for product adoption
    • Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Ownership of content
    • What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?
  • Parking Lot

Minutes

  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2018-03-28_SGB_Conference_Call
    • Further discussion over SOA PSS from last week. Point is to put products in a framework so people can see how they fit together and the relationships. Discussion over whether it should be called an architecture since it's not designing anything.
      • MOTION to accept: Thom/Sandy
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • Paul to address WG approval of ballot content and level at FMG
      • Paul did discuss with FMG to get clarity. The way that FHIR does it is that content that is either at draft or STU always ballots. The WG indicates through QA spreadsheet whether or not a resource is production ready. If it's ready, it's STU, and if it's not it's comment. Lorraine notes some groups do also vote within their WGs. Lorraine states we should have a precept that the WG responsible for the material determines if it is ready for ballot. Paul: The other thing that FMG does is that, while there is a requirement to get FMG approval on a resource, the approval isn't required until post-FMM1. Normative content is different and more stringent, and will possibly be continuous. Need to consider the notion between the two. Lorraine: There is also the issue of the votes to move to STU, which Paul is still chasing. Lloyd has expressed the they don't want to do reaffirmations, so that would mean continuous balloting - need to consider ramifications of that.
        • ACTION: Anne to make sure the WG approval item is back in actions
        • ACTION: Add normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR to upcoming agenda
    • Tony to put ISM information Confluence/Calvin to make some examples of how to use the ISM using CDA
    • Anne to add "role of architecture in standards development process" to TSC agenda in Cologne
    • Anne to send CDAMG call for volunteers to Andrea for distribution
      • Complete
    • Anne to send V2MG Mission and Charter document back to PLA
      • Complete
        • ACTION: Anne to send out V2MG M&C today on e-vote with any needed discussion on Monday.
        • ACTION: Anne to draft V2MG invitation email and send to SGB for review
  • Discussion Topics
    • From TSC: Review of Investigative RDAM PSS/how we deal with approval processes for projects that have an impact on our overall methodology
      • RDAM has an aspect of this, CIMI, and other things as well. Concerns are the work that can come in trying to embrace a new idea, where the new idea may be of great interest to those proposing it with fewer perceived values to the rest of the organization but ends up affecting the whole organization. Lorraine: While this isn't proposing a new product, it is proposing something new to the organization. Should practice using our new product evaluation from the DAM on it, or a similar adapted approach?
      • Reviewed BAM. Need list of tasks with their intention, and who will complete the tasks. Need to answer fundamental questions at the business level. What problem will the product solve? Is the problem known? Is the focus on the solution or on ridding oneself of the problem? Is the organization ready/what impact on the organization? As things stand, we're presented a solution as the starting point instead of having people come forward with a problem to discuss solutions. Historically, we've been bad at saying no. We need to clarify a decision making process on whether we say yes or not. Should be easier for the TSC or MGs to evaluate the work.
        • Next week: Look at definitions of each activity in step 1 of the BAM and boil it down into a task list.
    • Review FHIR artifact governance process
    • Review of project management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
    • Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
    • Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
    • Review Mission and Charter
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Technical Alignments Between Product Families
    • How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
    • Precept on bringing in large projects
    • Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
    • Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
    • Precepts We Need to Develop


Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved