AID Transition Plan (WG to HUG)
Issue: How should we transition the AID group from being a WG within HL7, to a HUG (HL7 User Group) within HL7? This has an inpact on governance, the role payed by AID within the organization, its deliverables etc.
- The GOM is silent on HUGs, and on transitioning WGs to a HUG
- HL7 are currently piloting the concept of a HUG in the form of a newly created Immunization HUG.
- The HL7 User Group task force coordinates the creation/management/piloting of HUGs, pending the definition of more formal goverance procedures.
Note: this is only exploratory at this point in time, AID hasn't made a decision yet as to whether it will actually turn itself into a formal user group.
Pros/Cons of being a HUG rather than a WG
- AID (and RIMBAA) have always exhibited the characteristics of a user group - e.g. we don't create any standards, we don't focus on standards developers but on standards users. This is also expressed by the fact that we tend to score low on the 'WG health metrics', because the focus of these metrics is on standards development. As such being a HUG would potentially be a better fit than being a WG: HUGs focus on usage of the standard, and not on the development of standards.
- HL7 regards user groups as being a 'member benefit', which means all discussions and products may be unaccessable to those not a member of the HUG or HL7 itself. The Immunization HUG has its own (closed) Wiki.
Essentially the transition is a two-step process:
- Petitioning the TSC to disband the AID WG (a process defined by the HL7 GOM)
- Petitioning xxx (unclear at this point in time) to create a AID HUG. The process/forms to do this will be comparable to the creation of a new WG. See forms on the User Group Task Force Draft Documents page.