Reuben Daniels (RD)

Jessica Bota (JB)

Lisa R. Nelson (LN)

Michael Faughn (MF)

Daniel Vreeman (DV)

Frank Oemig (FO)

Ted Klein (TK)

Marc Duteau 

Joan Harper 

John Snyder 

Robert Hausam 

Alex Kontur 

Ravi Kafle 

• Sprint 2 of UTG Jira development items is in progress, focusing on release tracking
  • Scheduling meeting for mid March to define release tracking requirements
  • Met with Lawrence to get started with Jira automation development
    • Priorities are automating creation of branch and cloning, as well as automating commit and push after editing changes
      • May eliminate need for Sourcetree
    • May be possible to edit resources directly in GitLab, eliminating dependency on cloning a local copy

• Task force recommendation review and implementation (voting, quorums, WG health, etc.): UTG Task Force Recommendations to TSC 
  • Tracked by HSCR-155 - Getting issue details... STATUS and its subtasks
  • Outreach subcommittee reviewed draft to Management Groups and is approved to be sent
  • Next Steps
    • Determine approach for asking Management Groups to provide OSGs
      • Send email to Management Groups for Product Family OSGs
        • Need to send to the -cc listserv (i.e. cdamg-cc@lists.HL7.org)
    • Ask Rob and Peter for help recruiting for Realm-Based OSG
    • Ask TSMG main call for Vocab/TSMG members for the Vocab OSG
      • Suggest all members/co-chairs be in Vocab OSG (unless in another OSG)
    • TSC clarification
      • Need to ask for clarification for ad hoc OSGs and how OSGs may change but membership does not automatically refresh on tickets already in Consensus Review
      • Expectations for when members of an OSG need to change
• THO release schedule
  • Need input from TSC/HQ and they have requested some information from TSMG on documentation and level of effort 
    • Info sent to Rob and Bryn who will follow up with TSC
• THO post-release cleanup
  • Need policy for cleaning up THO branches (created to commit content changes via UTG process)
  • Suggest removing branches from 1.0.0 and 2.0.0 releases at minimum: https://terminology.hl7.org/history.html 
  • Consideration for later: Need a policy for old proposals because branches will become very outdated and cause issues for both submitters and the Terminology Curator due to large number of merge conflicts over time
  • Feedback from Marc (aka Terminology Curator) - will also follow up with Grahame
    • There are likely four options
      • Keeping all the branches
      • Removing all or some branches in bitbucket
      • Removing all or some branches in github (but keep in bitbucket)
        • Currently leaning towards this option and removing all github branches except for current and previous release
        • Lisa suggests an announcement thread in Zulip #terminology/announcements to say this is the approach we are thinking of taking (which would also help with THO release announcements, interface changes, new external terminologies, etc.)
      • Removing all or some branches in both bitbucket and github
  • Will raise option #3 for a vote tomorrow
• Vocab suggests that TSMG require all code systems to have a Steward
  • UTG submitters would need to get WG approval from the Steward to propose changes to the code system
  • Discussed on main TSMG call but no one wanted to make a motion to make this a policy
  • Steward definition
    • The WG responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the code system (not to be confused with Publisher who makes the content available)
      • This implies that the WG has the domain expertise/knowledge related to the code system
    • The primary point of contact for questions or issues with the code system
  • FYI: Vocab added an extension for steward, there is a proposal to update the definition of publisher (which was intended to represent steward) and remove the extension
  • Might be a good idea to get a count of how many code systems in THO do not have a steward value
    • <extension url="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/structuredefinition-wg"> <valueCode value="inm"/> </extension>

  • How should we assign WGs for code systems without a Steward? 

    • Is Vocab the Steward for all V3 code systems?
    • Many things in V3 used in FHIR and V2 things used in V3 which complicates things
    • Ted suggests that the right thing to do is grind through all of them to assign a steward and since things cross product family lines then Vocab may need to be Steward and approach the grind that way
    • Approach Vocab to be Steward for any code system without one currently
      • Could be significant work if many changes are proposed to these code systems
    • What about retired? Must first be made active, needs further discussion

• Add missing Value Sets for cda-core-2.0
  • Review correspondence on UP-116 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Probably need to make a corresponding code system
  • May be able to clarify that they are active value sets used by CDA and previously used as a V3 concept domain but are now considered retired in V3 via the <definition>
  • Probably want them only on CDA tabs
  • We can add missing codes to https://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem-conceptdomains.html and create the value sets based on the concept domain code system
    • May need OID for concept domain code system, need assistance filling in property values from Lisa/SD
  • Will collaborate with Jess, Lisa, Marc, Rob H and others to get this task done. Ted has more info on missing attributes
• Workflow process for use of internal code system identifiers in FHIR and beyond (Did not discuss) 
  • Need to determine what kind of content should/should not be added to THO (i.e. if used in a balloted IG)
  • See UTG & THO Subcommittee for related resources
    • LN: For USCDI, once things are mature then those value sets should be in THO. Also an issue with duplication causing things not to align.