This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "2018-05-30 SGB Conference Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
**Ownership of content | **Ownership of content | ||
**What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model? | **What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Meeting Outcomes=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:49, 5 June 2018
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
Date: 2018-MM-DD Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Lorraine | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Russ Hamm | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| Ewout Kramer | |||
| Regrets | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| Regrets | Rik Smithies | ||
| Sandy Stuart | |||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-02_SGB_Conference_Call
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-18_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Action Items
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Anne to work on adding links on precepts page to approval minutes for each precept
- Ongoing
- Wayne and Calvin to discuss the balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR with EC
- Check with Karen regarding why you can’t redirect to correct content when balloters submit gforge comments that link to the wrong content – is it an ANSI or ER guideline?
- Recommend that TSC consider vocabulary tooling and succession planning
- Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- SGB Communication Plan
- Large architectures coming in
- CIMI MG followup
- Carried forward from previous weeks:
- SGB to look at continuous maintenance for Normative standards - discuss with Karen (on vacation this week)
- Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
- Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR
- 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
- RDAM
- Guiding principles for tooling
- 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?
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Not quorate
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-02_SGB_Conference_Call
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-13_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Approve Minutes of 2018-05-18_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Carry forward due to lack of quorum
- Action Items
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Not successful in meeting with them – will follow up
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Anne to work on adding links on precepts page to approval minutes for each precept
- Ongoing
- Wayne and Calvin to discuss the balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR with EC
- Carry forward
- Check with Karen regarding why you can’t redirect to correct content when balloters submit gforge comments that link to the wrong content – is it an ANSI or ER guideline?
- Discussion over how this works with various balloting methods. Reviewed dispositions. If the content belongs to another WG, there should be clarification that the disposition is implicitly be Unrelated. It should be obvious to everybody what happened. Should add comment in note field that the first group reviewed and voted to send to appropriate group/ballot. Maybe we need two ballot records – one for the ballot to which is was submitted, and also a “discovered” record for the one it should be on. If comment is redirected, what if the balloter wasn’t signed up for that ballot pool? Wayne suggests that perhaps you just treat it as a non-ballot comment.
- ACTION: Develop precept that you can’t have a normative artifact if it has dependences on artifacts which aren’t themselves Normative. Run past management groups and TSC.
- ACTION: Add redirecting ballot comments to TSC agenda
- ACTION: Invite Karen to TSC call on Monday to discuss
- Discussion over how this works with various balloting methods. Reviewed dispositions. If the content belongs to another WG, there should be clarification that the disposition is implicitly be Unrelated. It should be obvious to everybody what happened. Should add comment in note field that the first group reviewed and voted to send to appropriate group/ballot. Maybe we need two ballot records – one for the ballot to which is was submitted, and also a “discovered” record for the one it should be on. If comment is redirected, what if the balloter wasn’t signed up for that ballot pool? Wayne suggests that perhaps you just treat it as a non-ballot comment.
- Recommend that TSC consider vocabulary tooling and co-chair succession planning
- ACTION: Add to TSC agenda
- Paul to ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
- Carry forward
- Paul to meet in Cologne with Vocab/PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics
- SGB Communication Plan
- Carry forward
- Large architectures coming in
- Carry forward
- CIMI MG followup
- ACTION: Discuss on TSC leadership call on Friday
- SGB Communication Plan
- Carried forward from previous weeks:
- SGB to look at continuous maintenance for Normative standards - discuss with Karen (on vacation this week)
- Continued discussion: Tasks in step 1 of the BAM
- Normative balloting/continuous balloting in FHIR
- Review FHIR artifact governance process
- ACTION: Add to next week’s agenda
- 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
- RDAM
- Guiding principles for tooling
- 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?
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
