Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Please review the attached Work Group (WG) dissolution/merge request and edit this page to add a vote on behalf of your WG. Each WG gets one vote.

This vote will remain open until the end of day, Sunday November 6th unless the vote has not achieved quorum (60% of all work groups voting) at that point, in which case the vote will be extend until it reaches quorum. 

From the HL7 GOM:

The TSC Chair shall distribute the request to all other Work Group co-chairs and schedule a vote of the Work Group co-chairs to consider the request for dissolution within 30 days of submission. If appropriate, all Work Group co-chairs shall petition their Work Group members for candidates to join the affected Work Group in an effort to forestall its dissolution. Should sufficient members come forward, the request to dissolve the Work Group is moot.

Voters (one per work group) should use edit mode to enter their name and add an "X" to the Agree or Disagree column, as well as adding any comments they or their WG may have and accept an update to the page. Should your work group disagree with the dissolution of Modeling and Methodology, please use the comment column to indicate the names of work group members willing to begin participating in Modeling and Methodology meetings.


MnM Dissolution.pdf


Work GroupWG Voter NameAgree with WG DissolutionDisagree with WG DissolutionComment
Arden Syntax



Biomedical Research and RegulationSmita HastakX
Refer to the BR&R meeting minutes from 11/01/2022 for voting results 
Clinical Decision Support



Clinical GenomicsKevin Power

CG discussed on our Nov 1 call, and felt it is likely appropriate to dissolve based on participation, but we are missing where all of these responsibilities (from the MnM Charter) will fall. We found this on the MnM page on HL7.org (is there a more up to date Mission and Charter?):

http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/mnm/overview.cfm

There are comments made below that provide some insight, but it still feels unclear. If there can be documentation on how each of the responsibilities would be addressed, our workgroup would feel more comfortable with this vote. 

Clinical Information Modeling Initiative Stan HuffX
Was discussed with all co-chairs via email.  The co-chairs were unanimously in favor of disolution.
Clinical Interoperability Council



Clinical Quality InformationJuliet RubiniX
Discussed on 10.28.22 CQI work group call and voted to approve.  Minutes for that vote found here: 2022-10-28 Meeting Minutes
Community-Based Care and PrivacyDavid PykeX
Brought to a vote on 1/11/22  and approved.
ConformanceFrank Oemig, Rob Snelick

MnM has universal applicability and needs to be independent of any one product family. In general, a lot of the WGs fall into this category and should remain, e.g. Conformance. Assimilating infrastructural workgroups into a particular product family is not an optimal long-term strategy for HL7 (as new standards will surely emerge). It is our opinion that such WGs should remain independent.  2022-11-01 Conformance Call

Cross-Group ProjectsJean DuteauX
Voted on 3/11/2022 call and approved
DevicesJohn GarguiloX

Electronic Health RecordsGary DickinsonAgree

Emergency CareJim McClay
AbstainECWG isn't fully aware of the MnM functionality. Reading the other comments, we would support ensuring the MnM functionality is correctly distributed among other WG. Conformance makes a strong point that MnM is universal. Subsumption into FHIR-I without a name and scope change for FHIR-I implies HL7 is only FHIR. It seems the other HL7 product families are being neglected. While this may be functionally true, an official statement from HL7 leadership would be nice.
FHIR InfrastructureLloyd McKenzieX
FHIR-I voted to approve this before the formal submission was submitted.  (Sept. 23, Fri Q2 of the WGM - FHIR Infrastructure Minutes WGM 202209 - Baltimore)
Financial ManagementPaul Knapp
DisagreeFM supports the comments of O&O below. FM is not opposed to making FHIR-I the FHIR methodology group with limited additional domain content responsibility. The co-chairs of FHIR-I should not include members with concurrent HL7 management or governance responsibilities. FM does not support the transfer of the remaining MnM responsibilities to TSC as this would violate the separation of concerns regarding management, methodology and governance and is not populated with the skill sets to support this work. Suggest dispersing the work amongst other committees such as INM, ITS, SOA etc. For example, to combine within existing committees the abstract and concrete specification activity.
Human and Social ServicesChris ShawnAgree
HSS vote: 2022-11-03 HSSWG Agenda/Minutes - Human and Social Services - Confluence (hl7.org)
Imaging IntegrationX

Imaging Integration discussed on and approves the dissolution

Implementable Technology Specifications
DisagreeOn the issue of dissolution of M&M, moving FHIR related methodology to FHIR-I is fine. Having co-chairs who are both co-chairs of both management and governance groups was not allowed under former TSC precepts; but this has been removed. However there is a transparent conflict when an HL7 paid staff member, regardless of whether employee or contractor, holds the role of co-chair of a work group. This principle also extends to TSC chair, TSC vice-chair and product directors but for the latter primarily the family of which they are product director. So ITS disagrees as the proposal is currently construed. In other considerations, we support the position of OO that all non FHIR methodology artifacts should be assigned to domain committees rather than the TSC. 
Infrastructure and Messaging

Disagree
  • Per 11.02.03 of the GOM, we think that requiring co-chairs to volunteer in order to vote against this dissolution is not permitted. Jean Duteau

InM proposes that this decision is deferred until the next co-chair election, at which point a failure to establish any co-chairs would be further evidence that the wg should be dissolved with its content being owned by other HL7 workgroups.

More notes here: 2022-11-01 InM WG Agenda/Minutes - Infrastructure And Messaging - Confluence (hl7.org)


Learning Health Systems



Mobile Health



Modeling and MethodologyJean DuteauAgree
Minutes of decision to merge: MnM WGM Minutes 202209 Baltimore Minutes
Orders & ObservationsHans Buitendijk
Disagree

Proposal is to respond that separation of responsibilities around methodology (plus ITS, InM, SOA) is important and therefore do not support the proposal as currently written.  We recognize that the FHIR specific methodology topics move into FHIR-I (although not ideal as it does not separate interests/concerns sufficiently, it is de facto what is happening), moving the methodology elements to the TSC is concerning as that would not allow for open participation.  Rather we suggest that a new structure is explored that could encompass remaining methodology, including cross-paradigm opportunities, plus related workgroups such as ITS, InM, and SOA.  Additionally we suggest to clarify that the co-chairs would be added to the FHIR-I workgroup.  2022-10-20 Main

Patient AdministrationCooper ThompsonAgree
PA Group Vote: 2022-10-19 Conference Call Minutes
Patient CareEmma Jones; Jay Lyle; Laura Heermann; Mike Padula; Stephen Chu; Rob HausamAgree

Agree for the change. However, agreement with OO that a better approach is needed than moving All non-FHIR methodology elements to the TSC. Further assurance is needed along with a plan to determine where non-FHIR related modeling and methodology would be handled. If the future of HL7 is only FHIR, this need to be strategically communicated.

See 2022-10-24 Meeting Minutes

Patient Empowerment



Payer/Provider Information ExchangeChristol GreenAbstainAbstain2022-11-01 PIE WG did review suggestion of dissolution of MnM and move to FHIR-I.  Not being involved in MnM we would like to abstain.    Vote to approve to abstain:   14-0-0 to abstain
Pharmacy Jean DuteauAgree
2022-10-31 Agenda/Meeting Notes
Public Health



SecurityChris ShawnAgree
Security vote: 2022-10-31 Security WG Agenda/Minutes - Security - Confluence (hl7.org)
Services Oriented Architecture



Structured DocumentsGay DolinAgree
SDWG Group Vote: 2022-10-20 Agenda and Minutes
Vocabulary Rob HausamAgree

Vocab WG Vote: 2022-11-03 Vocab WG Call Agenda/Minutes

In agreeing with the dissolution and noted changes, Vocab WG also acknowledges it will have an ongoing role in the oversight of V3 terminology artifacts.

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. With respect to OO's comment, a bit of clarification.  In taking on responsibility for v3 methodology and data types, there is NO expectation that the TSC would actually make abstract data type or v3 methodology changes.  Their primary responsibility would be to say "No" to any such requests for change (which is what MnM's primary response has been to any such suggestions for change over the past several years).  There is zero appetite to update the abstract data types or the v3 methodology specifications.  The only place where v3 remains substantively alive is with CDA, and they care about the physical data types and their own methodology.  In the very unlikely event that the TSC decided that a change was actually justified, their responsibility would be to assemble an ad-hoc project group to either recommend on or possibly execute the requested change.  They would not themselves perform the change.  The feeling was that there was little benefit to assigning the "responsibility to say 'no'" to an actual work group when, if a change was needed, it would require dredging up the relevant individuals from wherever they had scattered within HL7 to perform the work.  It is unlikely that those with the needed skills will remain in any particular work group.

    As for co-chairs, Ron & Grahame will be transferring over to serve as FHIR-I co-chairs.  AMS and Jean will be stepping down at the end of the year.

  2. Paul Knapp Hans Buitendijk Both of your workgroups voted against the dissolution of MnM but did not offer a set of WG members who would be willing to attend future MnM meetings.  

    Emma Jones Only FHIR methodology is moving to FHIR-I.  There is no longer a need for V3 methodology in the organization.  CDA and V2 methodology are still supported by their current methodology groups.  The only artifacts that are moving to the TSC to be a custodian is the Informative MIF document, the RIM, and a Templates document.  There were no other artifacts that MnM was in charge of.

  3. Kevin Power The HL7 Development Methodology, modelling patterns and modelling practices was the v3 methodology and since there is no V3 development within the organization, there is no longer a need for v3 methodology.  As mentioned above, CDA, V2, and FHIR methodology all have other workgroups.  The Reference Model (RIM) will now be owned by the TSC who will assemble an ad-hoc project group to deal with any proposed changes.  The Abstract Data Types model has been withdrawn as V2 and FHIR have their own datatypes and CDA uses an older version of the physical data types.

    re: Infrastructure and Modelling's comments - We are not requiring that co-chairs volunteer, but asking if there were members in your workgroup that had a vested interest in keeping MnM from dissolving and thus would start attending the MnM meetings.  The main reason for MnM dissolving is twofold: 1) we regularly only get 3-4 people attending our conference calls and 2) we had no one volunteer to step forward to be a co-chair in the recent co-chair election.

    re: Conformance comments - MnM has never been independent of a product family.  It was the steward for V3 and also the FHIR methodology group.  V2 and CDA were never a part of its recent mission.