Stream: social
Topic: About "consensus groups"
Dave deBronkart (Aug 13 2020 at 15:52):
We new-to-HL7 co-chairs were greeted today with an email full of mystery. Help, please, with one item:
Health Level Seven International® invites you to take part in the formation of consensus groups....
Later in the email I see "Comments received from consensus group members will be addressed at that WGM or in regular teleconferences."
Is there somewhere a human readable description of consensus groups and their role in the HL7 process?
Abbie Watson (Aug 13 2020 at 15:58):
I suspect that's marketing speak. 'Consensus' has become something of a buzz word in the past 4 years, what with blockchain and the amount of civil unrest going on worldwide and within the US. The balloting process has traditionally been the measure of consensus, both in HL7 and other ANSI standards development organizations. But until recently, people didn't necessarily discuss it in those terms. There might be somebody else who chimes in with a more authoritative answer. Until then, my guess is it's a marketing position to appeal to the blockchain crowd and others who are concerned about epistemological issues involving truthiness, sources of truth, and trust networks.
Vassil Peytchev (Aug 13 2020 at 16:01):
Those who wish to vote on a ballot of a particular standard declare their intent by joining the consensus group. The pass/fail rate of the specification is based on the list of participants who signed up to vote for that specification.
On the main HL7 site:
image.png
Leads to:
image.png
Vassil Peytchev (Aug 13 2020 at 16:03):
From what I understand, this stems from ANSI requirements, including the timing - the consensus group must be created before the ballot is published for voting.
John Moehrke (Aug 13 2020 at 16:05):
Abigail Watson said:
I suspect that's marketing speak. 'Consensus' has become something of a buzz word in the past 4 years, what with blockchain and the amount of civil unrest going on worldwide and within the US. The balloting process has traditionally been the measure of consensus, both in HL7 and other ANSI standards development organizations. But until recently, people didn't necessarily discuss it in those terms. There might be somebody else who chimes in with a more authoritative answer. Until then, my guess is it's a marketing position to appeal to the blockchain crowd and others who are concerned about epistemological issues involving truthiness, sources of truth, and trust networks.
This has nothing to do with blockchain.... Standards organizations have been doing "Consensus" for hundreds of years, well before blockchain
John Moehrke (Aug 13 2020 at 16:06):
consensus group --> Those that agree to review and vote
John Moehrke (Aug 13 2020 at 16:07):
As Vassil points out, individuals must sign up to vote (register to vote) prior to a given deadline. That signup deadline is important to determine enough interest and determine who is interested. That deadline is significantly prior to the deadline to vote. Individuals can't just show up on voting day and vote.
Jean Duteau (Aug 13 2020 at 16:35):
Those words come from ANSI. You can read the ANSI Essential Requirements which list the requirements for procedures around the American National Standards process. Section 2.7 is about consensus. http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/membership/ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf
You can also look at HL7's Essential Requirements which dictate how HL7 is implementing those ANSI requirements. For Normative Balloting, section 02 is important (02.04 is about the formation of the consensus group). http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/membership/ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf
For those of us who are co-chairs, we are expected to know about this as described in the Co-Chairs' Handbook in Chapter 5 on Balloting: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CH#CoChairHandbook-Chapter5-Balloting
Abbie Watson (Aug 13 2020 at 16:54):
I stand corrected. ;)
Although, I will also stand by the claim that, as a matter of routine day-to-day activity, a lot of the messaging new members receive tends to be more around balloting. At least that was my experience. I'm in agreement that consensus has been around for hundreds of years, but we don't always talk about it using that specific term. There's quite a few synonyms in use. (And it just happens that blockchain has brought 'consensus' back into fashion, even though it's been kicking around in the ANSI documentation for years.)
Dave deBronkart (Aug 13 2020 at 18:52):
Jean Duteau said:
For those of us who are co-chairs, we are expected to know about this as described in the Co-Chairs' Handbook in Chapter 5 on Balloting: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CH#CoChairHandbook-Chapter5-Balloting
Wow, thanks! Guess I should have gotten into that long ago ... I'm sure I was told about it but my porous memory failed me again
Grahame Grieve (Aug 13 2020 at 20:09):
it's definitely standards jargon. We could provide some sympathy to new members on this. @Mary Ann Boyle FYI
Dave deBronkart (Aug 13 2020 at 21:27):
I don’t object to jargon. Re new members, the problem isn’t jargon (at least not for me), it’s the insanely evolving bureaucracy and infrastructure. I will pull back from trying to keep up with it. If that means I get FHIR-fired, so be it. :smile:. I’m sure nobody intends to have a stern “NINJAS ONLY!!” warning at the front door.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 13 2020 at 21:33):
don't pull back - it's good to be reminded when we have jargon. If it's necessary, we can at least clarify somewhere
Dave deBronkart (Aug 15 2020 at 21:35):
I didn't mean pulling back from the jargon - I meant from the evolving bureaucracy and infrastructure. "Oops, you used the wrong PSS model, because we haven't announced the new one, except it needs to be a proposal before it can be a PSS, but they're both listed on the PSS page." "And OBTW xyz is moving from Confluence to Jira," etc.
I'm sure I have the particulars wrong in those, but they're based on recent dazzling real items; my point is that it all makes a newbie's head spin, and THAT is what I'm pulling back from, for the sake of my sanity and my happiness about being involved. I'll either catch up with process & platform when they're reasonably stabilised someday, and/or let others roll with that aspect of being a change agent, while I focus on the thinking & evangelizing.
One thing's sure - if we want to engage the public to any extent, we need a large buffer zone or ambassador corps (a consulate?) to shield them from it while we engage with their thoughts, wants, and needs.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 15 2020 at 21:39):
when they're reasonably stabilised someday
lol. That'll be the day.
I suppose I shouldn't laugh, really, since I'm responsible for the ongoing change. It's always a tension between just leaving things as they are and making things better / easier for some reason. What change is justified?
Dave deBronkart (Aug 15 2020 at 21:54):
Grahame Grieve said:
And I don't want to impede that. I'm just saying that if I, with standards experience elsewhere and at least some bit of experience with product management and software development ... If someone with that background gags and falls over dizzy from the head-spinning, then we really do need a buffer zone between this and the general public.
And this is important, because it's too easy to diss the clueless public, saying "They wouldn't understand what we do," when we exist solely because of their needs. (I know you know this deeply but I wouldn't assume all readers do.)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 15 2020 at 23:10):
We should be able to explain (some of) these things to a 6-year old, right?
Or better - imagine explaining this in other languages where some of the concepts don't translate well.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 15 2020 at 23:11):
Perhaps our glossary may need some synonyms to navigate the jargon and acronyms.
Perhaps we all become assimilated eventually (and part of the problem :) ) but we should learn from our learning process
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 15 2020 at 23:12):
i.e. - leave breadcrumbs behind so that we can go back and walk in any newcomers. Make a glossary, some intro documentation... don't know...
Dave deBronkart (Aug 18 2020 at 19:25):
Jose Costa Teixeira said:
We should be able to explain (some of) these things to a 6-year old, right?
Explaining WHAT we're doing is not hard, IMO. Explaining the tools we use, and why... now THAT is a challenge :smile:
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
