Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Participants:

Groups and individuals within HL7 that have an interest in vocabulary artifacts

Steward Groups:

Steward Groups provide oversight for the vocabulary system in UTG

  1. Product family* methodology groups
  2. Responsible product groups identified by the TSC that publish vocabulary
  3. Vocabulary WG*
  4. International * 

Each of the above are encouraged to identify at least 3 representatives; TSC informed

No term requirement (similar to facilitators)

Other Groups:

  1. Super voters*
    1. UTG manager recommends, TSC approves
    2. Term: 2 years
  2. Individual reviewers
    1. Anyone with a JIRA login can comment, but you must sign up in UTG to be a reviewer (voter)
    2. Individuals must be an HL7 individual member or an employee of a member organization in order to sign up as a reviewer
    3. WGs should identify one or more individuals who will support the WG perspective in the UTG process

*These groups have quorum requirements

Draft Precepts:

  1. All HL7 members in good standing have the ability to register to vote on UTG vocabulary proposals.
  2. Non-members are welcome to provide comments on any item being discussed
  3. Steward groups within HL7 will identify individuals to represent their interests in the voting process
  4. The number of voting points associated with a super voter or steward vote may exceed the number of voting points associated with an individual reviewer vote
  5. Steward groups: There must be at least one vote from each steward group associated with a given proposal
  6. UTG decisions can be appealed to the TSC

Outstanding issues for the TSC:

  1. Need to add an appeal process - to be determined by TSC
  2. Periodic reviews of the process - to be determined by TSC
  3. Clarify quorum requirements - to be recommended by the UTG manager and approved by the TSC





Proposed Voting Level Settings for UTG Consensus ReviewSGBnotes0617.docx

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. My only concern with the above is the "maximum of 3 representatives" for the identified oversight groups.   We have a participation issue and for instance having had 3 on International (Paul, Sylvia, Alexander) I was unable to get anyone to participate in any votes until I hounded Paul mercilessly.  So we added Reuben as. 4th.   I think max 3 is too low.


  2. I got a reminder yesterday upon inquiry from some folks on a DaVinci FHIR project that the precepts/policy above does not address submitters and reviewer/voters that might NOT be HL7 members, but be terminology experts on projects led by HL7 members or in some way sponsored or supported by HL7.   We need to have this addressed as well.   

  3. Dunno why you changed the Super Voter thing - it was always intended to be the very small number of folks that the CTO determines based on their knowledge, involvement, and length of time doing terminology for all of HL7 (not just one area) that they can 'keep an eye on things' kind of role.    They are out of there if they stop being involved in HL7, or any time the CTO determines they are not doing what is needed.   

    For the reviewer/voters, we have already had one proposal come forward from the DaVinci project, and the folks with knowledge of the material and IG are not members of HL7.  Hence the need to be able to permit non-HL7 folks to participate as needed - but only on approval IMHO.

    2c was always what Was were supposed to do for vocabulary facilitators, but fell woefully short.  Dunno how to address this.