Charlie McCay email text:
"I think that there is a case for separating the statements describing what cMHAFF is and how it is being maintained alongside 82304-2 from the statements about the relationship between the two specifications from a user perspective.
These reads to me as an excellent way to frame the need for HL7/ISO/CEN/IEC to collaborate going forwards, and I would suggest that we take the statement forwards in that context, developing a proposal for the relevant HL7/ISO/CEN/IEC/CENELEC leaderships for how the specifications can be taken forwards.
It seems to me that the situation is as follows:
 both specifications have been developed to support the assessment of health apps.
 where possible they use common definitions and criteria
 there are differences in the number of criteria, and focus of the criteria, so a direct mapping between the criteria is not possible in the current versions of the specifications
 the PSDO relationship between HL7 and ISO opens up opportunities for more direct and formal collaboration in the maintenance of the specifications going forwards
I suggest that in the TS we include (a paraphrasing of) the statements ,  and  with a reference to the HL7 cMHAFF product page.
fwiw my preference for a future collaboration would be:
 ISO/IEC is the home for a base set of criteria
[1.1] ISO/IEC maintain the links into the suite of health software and software-as-a-medical-device standards
[1.2] HL7 maintains the links through to the HL7 functional specification frameworks
[1.3] HL7 maintains the links through to SMART on FHIR and similar relevant interoperability specifications
 HL7, HL7 Affiliates, CEN, and National Member bodies can define and ballot profiles for specific geographies or usecases. This may be done collaboratively between HL7 national affiliates and national member bodies.
Both specifications are in a "pre-standard" state... 82304-2 is a TS, and cMHAFF and STU .. and it is clear that there is more to learn about what he market needs and how to best drive adoption at scale... and I think that we need to keep the momentum up on those conversations"
Response to email:
- Overall agreement with statements outlined in the email
- Need to work on the description of differences as discussed in 3
- In principle, we fully agree with this proposed way forward. Discussion on the obvious need to walkout the proposed collaboration elements and work through the respective procedures for each organization.
- Plan to circle back to discuss next steps in the future collaboration after the respective products are in the public domain