Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees Present

Chair:  Paul Knapp
Scribe: Anne Wizauer


Name
Regrets

Calvin Beebe

xLorraine Constable
RegretsRuss Hamm
Regrets

Tony Julian

xPaul Knapp

Ewout Kramer
xAustin Kreisler
xWayne Kubick

Thom Kuhn
RegretsRik Smithies
xSandy Stuart


  1. Agenda review

  2. Approve Minutes of 2018-11-07 SGB Meeting

  3. Action Items
    1. Paul Knappto contact PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      1. Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
    2. Paul Knappto ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
    3. Paul Knappto draft precept on artifact governance
    4. Anne Wizauerto add US Core coordination with WGs to US Realm agenda/working process to ensure community engagement
    5. Anne Wizauer to work with Josh to set up SGB page
    6. Anne Wizauer to resend Project Life Cycle for Product Development Document for review
    7. Austin Kreisler to discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd (from 2018-10-24

  4. Discussion Topics
    1. Continued from last week's discussion on balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR:  In the event that comments come in during the ballot period before publication, and someone has alerted you to an important thing – what do we do? Does it become a found item? Does the committee have to vote on it? Is it excluded completely until the next version? Or do we hope someone submits it as a ballot item?
    2. Project Life Cycle for Product Development Document - followup discussion from 2018-10-31 call
    3. Continued discussion: Currency of Value Set Content
    4. SGB Communication Plan
    5. Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
    6. Precepts We Need to Develop

  5. Parking Lot
    1. Mapping coordination
    2. Add link to Confluence page from ARB page
    3. Review of product management life cycle spec to see if it talks about project and ballot scope
    4. Review of MG responses to SGB query on substantive change
    5. Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
    6. Review Mission and Charter
    7. Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    8. Technical Alignments Between Product Families
    9. How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
    10. Precept on bringing in large projects
    11. Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
    12. Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
    13. BAM guidance on process for product adoption
    14. Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
    15. FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    16. Ownership of content
    17. What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Agenda review
    1. Lorraine: We should summarize the discussion from US Realm regarding US Realm doing work instead of domain committees
    2. Need to discuss if we're meeting next week

  2. Approve Minutes of 2018-11-07 SGB Meeting
    1. MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Sandy
    2. VOTE: All in favor

  3. Action Items
    1. Paul Knappto contact PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
      1. Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
    2. Paul Knappto ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
    3. Paul Knappto draft precept on artifact governance
    4. Anne Wizauerto add US Core coordination with WGs to US Realm agenda/working process to ensure community engagement
    5. Anne Wizauer to work with Josh to set up SGB page
    6. Anne Wizauer to resend Project Life Cycle for Product Development Document for review
    7. Austin Kreisler to discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd (from 2018-10-24

  4. Discussion Topics
    1. Discussion at US Realm yesterday on US Core
      1. A PSS came forward for US Core FHIR material that was previously handled under InM and then we allowed US Realm to manage it in the following ballot. When the TSC looked at it, they were concerned that the USRSC, a board committee, was doing ballot reconciliation without working through the domain committees. There have been concerns in the past when omnibus committees start doing the work of domain committees; it is bad process and results in a less-reviewed and often erred product.  The profiles that are being modified must be reviewed/approved by the appropriate domain committees, which is actually FMG policy. On US Realm yesterday, there was concern from the chair and the other party doing the work regarding the time involved; they felt they had participation from the WGs whose content is under review. The work is being moved over to Structured Docs as sponsor for the moment. Need to be careful of this stuff in the future so we don't overload Structured Docs. It may not be the right place long-term. 
      2. The other issue is that the parties most concerned clung to precedence. We need to make sure we're not creating precedence-making steps. Because it's checked in to the HL7 repository does not mean everyone knows what's going on. In addition, the responsible committees had not been invited to the call to participate in the resolution. Need to be careful that the chair is also being paid to get this done, along with one of the other participants. They have natural project push, which is different than what you need to chair the discussion. Any large project profiling across multiple domains - we need to clarify what the coordination process is going forward. One concrete step would be getting WG review into the consolidated calendar, although that's what the initial content deadline is actually supposed to do. 
      3. We have a practical approach for the immediate problem; long term, what do we do with US Realm trying to do actual work? Will discuss on an 11 am call on Friday - what do we do with a board committee trying to do standards development. The board doesn't actually oversee. Also need to address the TSC understanding the work impact associated with this - committees that are profiling work done by other committees and if that work needs to be approved by the originating committee, or if they should simply be alerted to it and use the ballot process for review. FMG's current policy is that the WGs need to be notified and have the opportunity to decide what level of involvement they want. This particular project came out late. Because it's US Realm, it didn't go through Steering Division, which is another socialization opportunity.
    2. Continued from last week's discussion on balloted vs. non-balloted feedback in FHIR 
      1. In the event that comments come in during the ballot period before publication, and someone has alerted you to an important thing – what do we do? Does it become a found item? Does the committee have to vote on it? Is it excluded completely until the next version? Or do we hope someone submits it as a ballot item?
    3. Project Life Cycle for Product Development Document - followup discussion from 2018-10-31 call
      1. Discussion over ballot level; this was for comment and is not published on the standards grid. Several comments said to refer several items to SGB but they weren't. Discussion over lack of publication request or TSC review; people are unaware that it exists, yet we call it published. Should have come to TSC for action. Some of the material within is beyond what we actually expect WGs to do. 
      2. It's unclear in some areas where decision points come together. Should have different language depending on the nature of the good - STU, direct to Normative, etc. 
      3. Requirement to have minuted decisions for each transition is overkill for what we have been expecting from WGs
      4. Process for rolling out new processes doesn't require a publication request - just a draft for comment. States it was published in April 2018 on the cover page - should get rid of the word published. The current process is you draft it, you collect comments, and then you take to the TSC to see if TSC wants to adopt it as a process. That's the step that was missed. The first one may have been TSC approved but not the update.
      5. Still unclear on the intent of the document. Is this simply documenting our existing process? The original document provided some rigor around project management at HL7 when none existed. This document asks for more rigor than we currently apply. Just need to formally decide what we're doing with this. 
        1. ACTION: Anne to send comments and invite Project Services cochairs to attend a call to discuss on 11/28 or 12/5
    4. Continued discussion: Currency of Value Set Content
      1. There will be an item coming out of vocabulary as highlighted in harmonization this cycle. Need to get Ted to come again. 
        1. ACTION: Anne to invite Ted to 12/19 call to discuss the vocabulary issues raised on harmonization
    5. Continuous maintenance issue in FHIR:
      1. Need to park Calvin's document and decision on the SGB site.
    6. SGB Communication Plan
      1. Carry forward
    7. Updates that we do to newer versions of FHIR that are also applicable to older versions
      1. Carry forward
    8. Precepts We Need to Develop
      1. Carry forward
  5. We will not meet next week.
  6. Adjourned at 10:59 am Eastern

Action items

  • Paul Knappto contact PA re: approval items balloting at STU in FHIR R3 and then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient

  •  Paul Knappto ask PH for clarification on the status of items taken out of tracker and then reconciled on spreadsheet/ask for a plan for addressing the issue
  •  Paul Knappto draft precept on artifact governance
  • Austin Kreislerto discuss separation of concerns issue with Lloyd (from 2018-10-24
  • Anne Wizauer to send PLCPD document with SGB comments to Project Services and invite them to attend the 11/28 or 12/5 call
  • Anne Wizauer to invite Ted to 12/19 call to discuss teh vocabulary issues raised on harmonization this cycle
  • Anne to send comments and invite Project Services cochairs to attend a call to discuss on 11/28 or 12/5

  • Add Calvin's document on continuous maintenance and the decision to the SGB site.