Teleconference Information:

Dial-in number (US): (605) 313-4183
Access code: 844445#
International dial-in numbers: https://fccdl.in/i/karenvan
Online meeting ID: karenvan
Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/karenvan

Agenda

  • Revision Cycle 1901
  • GOM Review
  • Next Meeting Date

Attendees

NameAttendance

Melva Peters (Chair)

x

Hans Buitendijk

x
Karen Van Hentenryck
x
Peter Jordan
x

John Roberts


William E. Hammond


Charles Meyer

x
Vassil Peytchev (Guest)x

Supporting Material

Minutes 

GOM Revision Cycle 1901

GOC Issue IssueMinutes 2019-02-19Status
TBC

Can a component of a ballot may move forward as normative even if not all of the parts move forward as normative?

Essential Requirements: A component of a ballot may move forward as normative even if not all of the parts move forward as normative

FHIRPath - consensus within the WG that parts of the ballot are not mature enough to move forward. Consensus that it can be published with parts that are identified

ARB - re-ballot with notification that parts are normative and some not normative

2 issues:

  • Can a ballot that is balloted as normative be published with parts normative and parts not normative
  • Should there be a way to ask affirmative voters if publishing in this way -

Answer: can't go back within the same ballot and change the scope from what was included in the entire ballot

Concur with ARB that the scope of the ballot was changed.

Vassil: nothing in ER about change in scope.

  • Definition of substantive change - affects the use of the standard

Karen: thought could move forward parts of the specification

Can there be a process to determine that the ballot status (or parts of a specification status) can be changed to a lower ballot status after the ballot closes?

  • What are the criteria for a substantive change?
  • Who would decide on what constitutes a substantive change? TSC? FMG?

Action: This needs to go back to the FHIR Management Group or TSC for how to handle and determine if a new policy is needed. Need to consider the criteria for a substantive change.

1901001Co-chair elections concluded prior to the WGM. If we accept item 3 below, this becomes moot.Deferred to the next cycleDeferred
1901002Co-chair emeritus. This already effectively allowed. Does this mean that (1) once you are an active emeritus it is for life? And (2) do emeritus have full co-chair rights/responsibilities.Waiting for information from Staff on the criteria of Co-Chair emeritus. Executive Committee will be discussing 2019-02-19. Suggest that we defer this item to the next cycle.

Approved by EC

Will be deferred to the next cycle

1901003All leadership elections occur once a year. Can co-chair elect participants come to the co-chair meeting at the WGM. Should we move forward with this, we need to (1) ask the TSC to weigh in (2) determine pool of voters for co-chair voting. All on the call agree to move this forward.Move to Peer Review

Approved by EC

1901004Normative Ballot Proxy - Need to have a call with ANSI.

Definition of proxy in ANSI ER - focused on "written" proxy. Have precedent from ANSI that electronic document is synonymous with written documentation.

Would ANSI accept electronic sign up? Don't have an answer at this point.

Would be a change to the ballot instructions not ER. Add a place where balloter can assign proxy to "x" if can not be contacted when signing up for the ballot. Must be done for every ballot.

Suggest we defer this work item to the next cycle and continue analysis.

Approved by EC

Will be deferred to the next cycle

1901005Merging WGs and what happens to the projects. Can they be assigned to other WG? There is enough info in the GOM to cover this, but we may wish to add some clarifying information on the forms.

No further action needed

1901006Process for electing interim co-chair. Those in attendance feel it does require change to GOM. It is mentioned in the co-chair handbook, so maybe provide more clarity there. Refer to PICNo response from PIC

Referred to PIC

1901007GOM does not allow TSC to rapidly react to situations requiring technical decisions. Some concerns about this. Must be transparent and clear. Some distinction between the GOM being silent on an issues vs. the TSC taking action that is in conflict with the GOM. In both instances, TSC should communicate changes to GOM. Maintenance section of GOM may need to be changed.Move to Peer Review

Approved by EC


1901008Issue from Christol Green. This was not written up as one of our proposals but should be and responded to as other proposals submitted to GOM
No further action needed
TBD

Late Submission:

Ballot Naming: https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/18292/17090/GOM%2020180426%20Final-naming%20changes%2020181105BNTF.doc

Will defer to next cycleDeferred to next cycle

GOM Review project

  • Confluence page has been set up with copy of GOM
  • Initially would like 1 additional volunteer to review the GOM for:
    • consistency of wording
    • redundancy
  • Discussion
    • Chuck suggested that TSC should provide the sections that are problematic
    • Melva Peters to get list of changes from TSC
    • Melva Peters to reach out to John Roberts to see if he can help with review
    • Karen offered to help with review

Any Other Business

  • GOM 2019 - will this go forward
    • restructuring using proposed TOC
    • bring this into the GOM Review Project
    • Adopt all changes in the GOM - re-base - "accept all changes"
      • Board has to approve entire document approximately every 2 years
      • Should have done this in 2018 - 

Next Meeting Date

  • Peer Review - Feb 25 - March 26
  • Comments to be reviewed after March 26
  • No labels