Attendees

NameAttendance
Melva Peters (Chair)x
Chuck Meyer
Jean Duteaux
Hans Buitendijk
Nancy Orvisx
Peter Jordanx
Robert Stegweex
Ed Hammond
Karen van Hentenryckx
Christopher Schautx Guest
Ken Rubinx Guest


Agenda

  • Revision Cycle 2009
  • JIRA Use - note from Chuck
    • Eliminate the use of subtasks to capture EC adoption for action and EC approval of proposed revision.

      • We can capture that information in labels at the Issue level.  There would typically be three labels associated with an Issue.  Keep in mind that all Issues in a revision cycle are considered for adoption and subsequent approval as a group.

        • Example:

          • First label identifies revision cycle: RC2009

          • Next label captures EC adoption with date: ECad201015

          • Final label captures EC approval with date: ECap201220

      • A quick review of the Issue would detail the status of EC actions without having to drill down to the subtask.  Plus less impact on JIRA resources given fewer subtasks.

      • If we agree, beginning with RC2009 each Issue would have a subtask for analysis/proposed revision and a subtask to capture peer review comments created if a comment is submitted.

    • Action Item:  Fix issues that have dates in EC labels
  • GOM review project
  • Next Meeting

Meeting Notes

  • Revision Cycle 2009

    The following represent current issues labeled for RC2009.  All are “Ready for Review” including subtask Analysis/Revision. 

    GCR 58

    Clarify “named by LDNC” HL7 Director nomination criteria
    RC2005 adopted by EC; deferred
    Awaiting feedback on proposed revision – EC, Staff, LDNC

    • add "or comparable" to "Nominees for HL7 Director must be current individual members or designated voting representatives of current Organizational members and should have held leadership positions at the Work Group, council, and/or committee level or have comparable experience." - will add new issue
    • The goal of having nominations from the LDNC was to bring in new individuals into the leadership that bring specific skills to the Board - for example, fund raising, marketing.
    • Motion: Do not change the GOM to require 10 nominations for LDNC nominated candidates - Robert/Karen
      • Carried - 5-0-0

    Melva will add new issue related to adding "or comparable" to skills - DONE

    GCR 78

    Update trademark section
    RC2001 issue; deferred pending EC decision on trademarks.
    Resolution – refer readers to trademark policy online

    • ensuring approval by the trademark owner - covered by the Joint Copyright letter or SOU.
    • Wording should specific "fair" use label requirements (e.g. Microsoft)
    • Update wording of first section  - Please refer to HL7 Trademarks for the specific guidance on use.
    • Change to "The use of HL7 trademarks is governed by the HL7 Trademarks page on the HL7 Website."
    • Trademarks or service marks, other than those registered by HL7, shall only be used in HL7 Protocol Specifications (§02.02) when approved by the trademark owner or covered under Fair Use (see examples on HL7 website)however, when If used, the first occurrence of the mark will be indicated by the appropriate symbol and the name of the trademark owner will be annotated in the front matter of the HL7 Protocol Specification.

    Motion: Karen/Jean - Carried - 6-0-0 to approve updated wording as follows:

    • 09.02.02 - The use of HL7 trademarks is governed by the HL7 Trademarks page on the HL7 Website.
    • 0902.03 - Trademarks or service marks, other than those registered by HL7, shall only be used in HL7 Protocol Specifications (§02.02) when approved by the trademark owner or covered under Fair Use (see examples on HL7 website)however, when If used, the first occurrence of the mark will be indicated by the appropriate symbol and the name of the trademark owner will be annotated in the front matter of the HL7 Protocol Specification.

    GCR 98

    Update §09 to address defunct 90-day embargo on IP
    RC2005 adopted by EC; deferred.  Now reflects feedback from Wayne

    Motion: Karen/Nancy to approve the proposed change with one additional reference to Section 02.02 in the first sentence in Section 09. - Carried 6-0-0

    GCR 113

    Verify Key Voting Representative upon annual renewal


    GCR 127

    Individual membership dues


    GCR 131

    Matching student members to WG during WGM


    GCR 133

    Rescind professional courtesy for SDO’s (§06.02.03)


    GCR 145

    Representing HL7


    GCR 147

    Contract Work Process
    Edited with revisions following input from Hamill, McDougall, Kubick


    GCR 151

    Endorsing tools for standards development
    ARB suggests minor edit to clarify that it relates to tools created or promoted “by HL7”
    Do we need to open an issue re: Wayne’s comment regards TSC involvement or lack thereof in tooling?


    GCR 153

    The Working Group
    Suggests elevating section on “The Working Group” back to level 1


    GCR 198

    Improvement to WG co-chair election process


    GCR 200

    Limit number of WG co-chair positions for an individual


    GCR 205

    Revise reaffirmation process to meet ANSI requirements
    Revision results from ANSI review of HL7 ER 2020.  Not subject to EC adoption or approval.  Peer review is virtually for information only.  Revision has been reviewed and approved by ANSI.


    GCR 207

    Resolving motions electronically


    GCR 209

    Code of Conduct has been updated; include Diversity Policy or link to in GOM
    Revision replaces section with link to Code of Conduct and Diversity Policy


    For what it’s worth, the following GCR appear to be in limbo

    GCR 66

    Revised Naming Convention [Jean Duteau]
    Approved for RC1905, but implementation deferred at request of TSC.  No further action

    Reminded Jean to take back to TSC

    GCR 100

    Declaring component of Normative ballot non-normative [Jean Duteau]
    Originally reported for RC1901.  Proposed revision prepared by Hans, but has not been carried forward to JIRA.  Perhaps this is no longer on anyone’s radar; if so, it should be deleted.

    Reminded Jean to take back to TSC

    The following GCR were entered into JIRA as “Deferred” with no further action

    GCR 104

    Break the glass solution for named proxy. IMO, should be deleted. You can’t daisy chain proxies

    No discussion

    GCR 125

    Code of Ethics – there seem to be multiple

    No discussion

    The following GCR have been submitted with no further action.  Many may have been resolved as a result of other issues or may no longer be applicable or of any consequence.

    Melva will review and update as necessary

    GCR 137 - Board and EC Section

    GCR 155 - TSC Committees

    GCR 157 - 10.11.08 Removal and/or Replacement of a Member

    GCR 159 - 10.11.09 conduct of meetings

    GCR 167 - 11.05 White papers

    GCR 171 - Section 13 and 14

    GCR 173 - Section 15

    GCR 175 - Section 09.01.05 explanation of Creative Commons Licensing

    GCR 181 - Anti-trust policy needed - this was added by Chris Melo in May - see updated comments - status moved to In Progress

  • JIRA Use - note from Chuck
    • Eliminate the use of subtasks to capture EC adoption for action and EC approval of proposed revision.

      • We can capture that information in labels at the Issue level.  There would typically be three labels associated with an Issue.  Keep in mind that all Issues in a revision cycle are considered for adoption and subsequent approval as a group.

        • Example:

          • First label identifies revision cycle: RC2009

          • Next label captures EC adoption with date: ECad201015

          • Final label captures EC approval with date: ECap201220

      • A quick review of the Issue would detail the status of EC actions without having to drill down to the subtask.  Plus less impact on JIRA resources given fewer subtasks.

      • If we agree, beginning with RC2009 each Issue would have a subtask for analysis/proposed revision and a subtask to capture peer review comments created if a comment is submitted.

    • Discussion 2020-09-22 - The GOC discussed and determined that a comment should be added to the parent issue with the date of EC adoption and approval.
      • Use a label for the specific revision cycle
      • The labels that will be used for EC approval/adoption will not include the specific date as this is captured in the comments:
        • ECadopted
        • ECapproved 
      • using standard labels will help with searching and finding issues 
  • GOM review project
    • finished Phase 1
    • Phase 2 - 
      • still need to consider the readability of the GOM
      • suggest GOC members read the GOM and look at the wording - 
        • is the section still relevant and applicable? 
        • readability - is there a way to improve how the understandability of the GOM?
          • it is a reference document that we point members to, so in needs to be understandable.  There are issues with this currently
          • HL7 Essential Requirements are the ANSI requirements for HL7 - they are split out
  • Next Meeting
    • Going forward the GOC will have meetings to review proposed revisions rather than relying on the GOC members to review the suggested changes.  It is felt that the issues will get a more thorough review and discussion.
      • this will be done before the issues are sent to the membership for Peer Review.
    • Melva will send out a doodle poll for a 90 minute call the week of October 12 - start at 4pm to ensure that the time works for Robert and Peter 
  • No labels