Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees Present

Chair:  @
Scribe: @ 


Name
x

Calvin Beebe

xLorraine Constable

Russ Hamm

Tony Julian

xPaul Knapp

Ewout Kramer
xAustin Kreisler
xWayne Kubick
xThom Kuhn
xRik Smithies
xSandy Stuart

Agenda

  1. Agenda review
  2. Approve Minutes of 2019-04-17 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  3. Action Items
  4. Discussion Topics
    1. Review FMG's edits to http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ballot_Expectations 
    2. Continued discussion re: generalized precepts from FHIR Package IG Release Policy Issue
      1. DRAFT PRECEPT: Product families must identify a versioning approach that makes it clear when any published standard is changed.  If the standard is composed of multiple parts, a change in any one part needs to be reflected as a change in the entire suite of parts. 
      2. DRAFT PRECEPT: Specifications should contain a change log noting what has changed. 
    3. Continued discussion on large architectures coming in: risks/precepts (from last week)?
    4. architecture/tooling risks that came out of TRAC
    5. Continue with draft policies to develop around Currency of Value Set Content
    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 Mission and Charter
    5. Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    6. Technical Alignments Between Product Families
    7. How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
    8. Precept on bringing in large projects
    9. Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
    10. BAM guidance on process for product adoption
    11. FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    12. Ownership of content
    13. What precepts do we need to address PSS/profile approval processes of balloting and publishing potentially thousands of CIMI model?

Minutes

  1. Agenda review
  2. Approve Minutes of 2019-04-17 SGB Agenda/Minutes
    1. MOTION to approve: Austin/Calvin
    2. VOTE: All in favor
  3. Action Items
  4. Discussion Topics
    1. Reviewed Montreal agenda.  
      1. Next week: define scope of large group engagement discussion in Montreal
    2. Review FMG's edits to http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ballot_Expectations 
      1. Lorraine still disagrees with second bullet. Product director's blog or similar doesn't necessarily achieve that. It's not a formal channel of communication and we don't direct the larger community there. Needs to be an official channel that can be tracked and recorded. Some of the hiccups we've had is people have done some things so informally that we are unaware. We have other approved means for peer review on STU updates. Should say "If there's a need to reach a broader community to ask specific questions to allow content to move forward, consult the product director for appropriate communication channels."
      2. Fourth bullet may address this, but what moves the issue from one to the other? Concern about replacing our ballot mechanisms with other mechanisms, especially in the last stages of a normative. In the early stages we should accept that we're balloting ourselves to death. 
        1. MOTION to update bullet 2 in item 1 to say "If there's a need to reach a broader community to ask specific questions to allow content to move forward, consult the product director for appropriate communication channels." Calvin/Rik
        2. VOTE: Austin abstains. Remaining in favor.
          1. Anne to add to FMG and TSC agendas
    3. Continued discussion re: generalized precepts from FHIR Package IG Release Policy Issue
      1. DRAFT PRECEPT: Product families must identify a versioning approach that makes it clear when any published standard is changed.  If the standard is composed of multiple parts, a change in any one part needs to be reflected as a change in the entire suite of parts. 
      2. DRAFT PRECEPT: Specifications should contain a change log noting what has changed. 
        1. Reviewed policy. Discussion over differences between FHIR package and other product packages. FHIR package = technical materials and specification. If one of the constituents changes, the versioning scheme needs to reflect that something changed.
        2. Will discuss in Montreal on the Friday. 
    4. Large project WG update: 
      1. There was confusion at US Realm regarding needing volunteers. Everyone turned and looked at Brett; he essentially said no on being a cochair but said he was willing to be a member. US Core issue also came up and US Realm Steering Committee's ownership of it, which they technically are not supposed to have according to their mission and charter. They have oversight but aren't supposed to do the work. The domain WGs are supposed to have authority over the content. 
    5. Continued discussion on large architectures coming in: risks/precepts (from last week)?
      1. One risk is people aren't obtaining buy-in and participation from the community on projects that cross domains. The issue is people not having their say from their domain. Should brainstorm alternatives to find a way out of this pattern of single group owning something. The original way C-CDA was developed was much of the work was done outside and then brought in; then so many comments came in on the ballot and reconciliation took over a year. The work either has to be done on the front or the back.
      2. Montreal - brainstorm alternate models. V2 to FHIR mapping project with a tooling sub-project is one model. C-CDA is another model. We conceive as these things as one huge unit so it can be cited in regulation. Another way would be subdividing into smaller units. Need to brainstorm alternate strategies and come up with documentation on them.
      3. If accelerator projects are going to come up with massive things, we need them to bring people in to help with the work. 
    6. Homework for Montreal
      1. Look at the TRAC risks
      2. Look at draft precepts around versioning
      3. Link to currency of value set content
        1. Anne to send out
    7. Cancel next week
    8. Adjourned at 11:00 am Eastern







OPEN ACTION ITEMS:


DescriptionDue dateAssigneeTask appears on
2019-12-18 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  • Paul Knapp to send documentation to the cochairs of HTA and Vocabulary noting that we've drafted precepts on external terminologies and highlight questions on their currency document.
Paul Knapp2019-11-06 SGB Agenda/Minutes
Paul Knapp2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Paul Knapp2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Austin Kreisler2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Lorraine Constable2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Anne Wizauer2019-08-28 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  • ACTION: Paul Knappto ask for the most current version of Currency of Value Set Content
Paul Knapp2019-08-07 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  • ACTION: Paul Knapp will work on a grid with types of change/degree of review
Paul Knapp2019-05-22 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  • ACTION: Need to create precepts on stable identifiers for value sets, concept maps, and code systems
2019-01-18 SGB WGM
  • ACTION: Review proposed updates to the GOM, then determine how/where to represent SGB
2019-01-18 SGB WGM
  • Add Calvin's document on continuous maintenance and the decision to the SGB site.

2018-11-14 SGB Agenda/Minutes