Stream: fmg
Topic: ANSI
Grahame Grieve (Aug 01 2019 at 02:53):
ANSI have formally approved the normative portions of the FHIR Specifications as ANSI normative standards
Grahame Grieve (Aug 01 2019 at 02:54):
since the process was different to the past, it wasn't a simple approval - thanks for @Wayne Kubick, Austin, and Karen for putting heaps of work into it
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 01 2019 at 03:24):
Anything we should keep in mind to do differently for the next round?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 01 2019 at 03:25):
nothing we haven't already thrashed out
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 22:59):
Lynn has just pointed out to me that one of the IGs being balloted this cycle is not yet approved
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 22:59):
https://wiki.hl7.org/Breast_Radiology_FHIR_IG_Proposal
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:00):
is there any story to this?
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 06 2019 at 23:07):
Forwarded you the email thread.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 06 2019 at 23:09):
Looks like he never updated the proposal after Lynn imported the template and he never replied to that email, so I never had Ann add it to our FMG agenda. (It would have been a late consideration anyhow. In theory he could claim that he submitted the Confluence-based proposal 'on time' but he didn't let anyone know about it and didn't put it in the right place, so I have a hard time saying that counts.)
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:42):
so where does that leave us?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:43):
btw, I've discovered, working with Lynn this time, that we have no systematic process for naming the IG. Individual authors are naming the IGs, and consistency has nothing to do with the process. I've just overridden a few names, but I'm not sure what the process should be
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 06 2019 at 23:47):
It leaves us with an IG whose proposal isn't approved and isn't (yet) even in the right format - though at this point, that's primarily a formatting issue. My leaning is to review it on the call tomorrow if we can. Richard has tried to follow process. It just seems that process is too hard for a lot of groups still.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:48):
confluence might help a little.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:49):
we should spend some time refining the process
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 23:49):
though not necessarily tomorrow.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 06 2019 at 23:54):
Part of the challenge is that TSC process is itself somewhat broken. It conflates "project" with specification - even though there can be a many-to-many relationship between those things.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 07 2019 at 00:08):
ah yes. TSC ballot id comes from the project name, since that's what TSC approves. Which is part of why they're such a mess
Paul Knapp (Sep 04 2019 at 19:56):
Not so sure about that: Projects have a name but a project may result in multiple artifacts each of which would have a different name and its the name of each balloted or published artifact that TSC considers. We do have a style for artifact naming but it has been more relaxed for IGs. Perhaps M&M or FMG should consider proposing an IG naming pattern or patterns for FHIR IGs.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 04 2019 at 19:59):
Project, specification and ballot all have many..many relationships
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
