2020-08-26 FMG Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 2020-08-19 FMG Agenda/Minutes
• Action items
• Review Items
  • Publication Request: HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: FHIR Shorthand, Release 1

    • http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-shorthand/

  • Publication Request:  HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: C-CDA on FHIR, Release 2
  • IG Proposal: VANGUARD CRN
• Discussion Topics
  • R4B/R5
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
  • SGB –
  • MnM –
  • FMG Liaisons –
• Process management
  • Ballot Planning
  • Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
• AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

• Roll Call
  • Numerous guests here for approval items
• Agenda Check
  • No additions
• Minutes from 2020-08-19 FMG Agenda/Minutes
  • MOTION to approve: Hans/John
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action items
  • Reviewed
• Review Items
  • Publication Request: HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: FHIR Shorthand, Release 1

    • http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-shorthand/

      • MOTION to approve: Hans/David
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Publication Request:  HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: C-CDA on FHIR, Release 2
    • Rick has made updates based on previous FMG feedback
    • Lloyd notes heading levels should be H3
    • Reviewed QA. Need to check US core encounter type.
      • MOTION to approve assuming errors are corrected: David/John
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • IG Proposal: VANGUARD CRN
    • Kevin describes the focus of the project. 
    • VANGUARD is a legal entity. Lynn confirms that we won't need a joint copyright.
    • Long description should be present tense for the purposes of the registry entry. 
      • MOTION to approve: Hans/David
      • VOTE: All in favor
• Discussion Topics
  • R4B/R5
    • Grahame states there is a plan to rework the build to give us a different option. That plan requires funding which has been requested from ONC. The goal is to have a build that better accommodates migrating content. Discussion over doing a comment ballot in January and a regular ballot in May. We could say that we'll publish an R4A or B with changes in specific domains as a trial use ballot for January if we could pull it together in time. 
    • Lloyd summarizes that we won't proceed immediately to R5. We plan to produce an interim release that is R4 + changes in specific areas. WG should nominate what those specific areas should be. Should set a deadline by which they need to decide. We'll work on tooling to make it easier for us to maintain a patched release where we can fold changes into the R4 base. We'll publish from there instead of from R5. Target January with May as a fallback or possible out of cycle ballot. Grahame: R5 doesn't go away; work will remain focused on R5. Josh is concerned that people will feel that they don't have a path to the next ballot. Lloyd: The development path is they continue working in the R5 CI build. When we're able to migrate that content into an R4 branch we'll do so with some minor reworking. 
    • R5 won't be ready to go on the timeline we intended it to be on. There is still pressure to get something out in 2021, which is where the notion of R4B is coming from. Need to nail down the scope by the end of September. Tooling updates between then and January. Could probably get an R4B out in April if everything goes to plan. Josh has concerns about setting milestones that slip and then everything is delayed. Lloyd: If we proceed with this plan, we would do comment ballot of R5 in May and full ballot in September, publishing R5 in Q1 of 2022. 
    • Josh: We should decide that we won't push back R5 if R4B misses timelines. Discussion over feature branches. Could notionally have the idea that if you're looking at something going out sooner than R6, then managing it in a branch would be an option.
      • Could make a motion that we solicit funding from ONC to enable an R4B from a tooling perspective to make it easier to migrate content between branches; if successful, we will aim for an R4B release in the January cycle. Initial development will be on the R5 CI build and migrate that into an R4B branch when the tooling allows it with an aim to publish in Q2 2021. Will plan to have a for comment ballot of R5 in May of 2021 with an expectation of R5 publication in early 2022: 
      • Josh would vote against this motion. Projects are at risk of dragging out this schedule and will slow down R5 velocity. Lloyd makes the case that it is unlikely to slow down R5 velocity. Grahame: There might be a cycle delay on R5 but is not convinced that people want to get R5 out quickly. Discussion over strategy for future releases/updates and specific demand for R5. 
      • Lloyd: So having the infrastructure in place for 4B is supported. We don't want to see 4B push a delay to R5, but we're also not seeing a big implementer push for R5. Will want R5 to be neat and tidy as it may be the last major release. 
    • Carry forward to next week
• Put Connectathon early on the agenda next week
• Adjourned at 5:35 pm Eastern