Stream: fmg
Topic: Change in deadlines?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2016 at 15:04):
What was the FMG decision on changing the deadlines for publishing? If a decision has been made, is it going to be announced?
David Hay (Nov 16 2016 at 07:23):
Ballot dates:
Feedback was varied. Still have to do a frozen version for Connectathon. Paul asks if we could move to 12/4. Grahame asks what content is going to ballot. IG on DAF; FHIR profiles on CCDA, Infobutton, pharmacy medication; FHIR repository process and requirements. Grahame doesn't think we can move from the 27th for the content that is in the ballot, but we could compromise on the content that is not in the ballot. Resources that are included in the ballot will freeze on 11/27; resources that are not in the ballot will freeze on 12/4.
MOTION to move the publication date for STU 3 from December 31st into roughly February: Paul/Brian Post
VOTE: all in favor
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 07:53):
Ok. So are you and I supposed to announce that or is Grahame going to? Also, what does it mean that we can't move from the 27th the content that is in the ballot? Does that mean no changes to resources used in ballot IGs after Dec. 4th? (That would probably be problematic.)
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 07:58):
The resources which are used in IGs to be ballot this cycle will be frozen on the 27th to allow the IG authors to complete their materials for inclusion in the ballot. The full specification will be frozen on Dec 4 for the ballot and Connectathon but the continuous build will be open shortly thereafter to continue the development of STU materials in advance of the Feb cut off for publication.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 07:59):
ok. That's what had previously been discussed. Who should announce?
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 08:00):
FMG chairs I think.
The question of changing resources which are used in IGs in ballot - during the ballot - is an interesting one. Typically you wouldn't do that as you have the problem of showing balloters one thing but having in the system another. However, this can be useful to illustrate solutions to found issues or new considerations.
What matters fundamentally is that there are tracker items or ballot comments which detail the issue and committee decisions whose result(s) support the change(s) which ultimately appear(s) in the current build. Those committee decisions should probably not occur prior to the close of the ballot so to not prejudge the process.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 08:20):
The ballots are on the IGs, not the resources. I don't think we can (or should) constrain the WGs from updating the resources while the IG ballot is open.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 08:22):
Given that the motion didn't identify specific dates, shall I announce the ones we'd discussed previously? Resource substantive freeze Feb. 19, total freeze Feb 26, publish mid/late March after a QA period and updates?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 08:22):
I don't think we want to announce a schedule change without specifying dates.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2016 at 08:54):
yes
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 11:09):
"Yes" = announce with the dates I listed above?
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 11:31):
"The ballots are on the IGs, not the resources." Well the IGs certainly aren't independant of the resources they are implementing, so while the WG can make substantive changes to the resources while they are in ballot they make it more difficult to assert 'peer review' and to resolve ballot items, not impossible but potentially more difficult. For example, if a resource is changed during the ballot such that a ballot comment is no longer persuasive you couldn't judge it non-persuasive because it no longer applies.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 11:47):
@Paul Knapp But that problem doesn't change whether the resource is updated during or after the ballot. (And it's actually easier on the IG reconcilers if the change is made prior to reconciliation rather than after.)
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 11:50):
The concern is not the buden placed on reconcilers but the integrety of the process and the ballot comment of the ballotor in the context of the material they were reviewing.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2016 at 11:52):
I don't understand this discussion about changing resources during ballot. Are we talking about changing in trunk, or in the ballot fork?
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 11:53):
Current build, not the ballot site.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 11:55):
@Grahame Grieve still need confirmation on the meaning of your "yes"
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2016 at 12:02):
then I don't understand why we don't allow changes to current build
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2016 at 12:03):
yes to the dates we agreed previosuly
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 12:04):
We do allow changes to the current build, no one has said we wouldn't.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 12:07):
@Paul Knapp You were implying that we would limite changes to the current build while the ballot was open for resources referenced by balloted IGs. I'm arguing (and believe Grahame agrees) that there should be no such limitation - that as soon as the ballot is published, the freeze is removed and anyone can change anything they like that's supported by a tracker item with an objective of getting as many of the changes applied as possible before the WGM. (And IG reconcilers can choose how much reconciliation they're going to bother to conduct while the resources are still undergoing change.)
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 12:12):
Actually Lloyd, you were the one who previously stated when we discussed extending the STU publication date that WGs should not make substantive changes to the resources after the WGM in response to my comment that the extension would give time for further face to face review.
My comments here are to advise caution in making changes to material when that material is in ballot as it makes the reconciliation difficult and the assertion that the peers have reviewed 'the material' potentially questionable.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 12:56):
My assertion about changes after the WGM was based on a belief that we should be trying to get as much changed as possible before then.
So I will announce the following:
Nov. 27- Ballot substantive resource freeze (prioritize resources that IGs will be based on)
Ballot total freeze - Dec. 4
Dec. 9 (or a day or two earlier) - Freeze released - all changes allowed
Feb. 19 - Publication substantive resource freeze
Feb 26 - Publication total freeze
Holler if anyone has any concerns
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2016 at 13:11):
What I don't see is deadline for STU3 ballot reconciliation. It was Feb 20th before; where is it now? The schedule you you have, as I read it, is simply a freeze of activity for a period starting Nov 27. Or is the STU3 reconciliation deadline the Feb 19th?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 13:15):
True. We need time to ask for withdrawals. Is Feb. 5 reasonable? (Most, if not all, reconciliation should be complete prior to the end of the WGM)
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2016 at 13:15):
It would also be good for us to explain which Resources are important to be stable in this frozen version; thus which are not critical (e.g. Consent.. just guessing).
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 13:16):
I'll include Grahame's list for the priorities to work on first - we won't ask they be stable, but will ask WGs to tackle those ones first.
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2016 at 13:18):
I am comfortable with this. My questions are intended to help drive a clear communication message.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 13:54):
Here's my proposed email:
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 13:54):
Based on feedback from HL7 work groups and after generally positive feedback from the implementer community, the FMG has decided to change the timelines for publication of STU 3 to ensure opportunity to complete ballot reconciliation, workflow alignment and progress up the FMM maturity curve.
That said, the original deadlines for ballot freeze remain to meet the needs of those implementation guides which are balloting in the Dec/Jan cycle.
Over the next 2.5 weeks, work groups are asked to prioritize the application of substantive changes to the following resources which will be used by IGs balloting in the January ballot:
AllergyIntolerance, CarePlan, CareTeam, Composition, Condition, Device, DiagnosticReport, Goal, GuidanceResponse, Immunization, Location, Medication, MedicationAdministration, MedicationDispense, MedicationOrder, MedicationStatement, Observation, Organization, Patient, Practitioner, Procedure, ServiceDefinition
Timelines for the revised cycle are as follows:
Sun. Nov. 27- Ballot substantive resource freeze (prioritize resources that IGs will be based on)
Sun. Dec. 4 - Ballot total freeze - Dec. 4
Sun. Dec. 9 (or a day or two earlier) - Freeze released - all changes allowed
Sun Feb. 5 - Ballot reconciliation deadline - All ballot comments must be reconciled, tracker issue report must be clean
Sun. Feb. 19 - Publication substantive resource freeze
Sun. Feb 26 - Publication total freeze
Mon. Feb 27 - QA period opens
Tue. Feb 28 - FMM QA spreadsheet updated for all WG resources
Sun. Mar. 13 - QA period closes
Sun. Mar. 20 - All QA applied
"following week" STU 3 is published
All dates represent end-of-day Eastern time, though a few hours of wiggle room may be granted by request on the committer's chat.
If there are any questions about this revised timeline, please let us know or ask your FMG liaison.
Lynn, can you please update the publishing calendar to reflect the above dates?
Lloyd McKenzie & David Hay
FMG co-chairs
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 13:55):
Feedback welcome
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2016 at 14:03):
The sentence starting "That said..." I think should be changed to "However, in order to support Implementation Guides that are balloting in Dec/Jan cycle, we need to prioritize substantive changes to the Resources these implementation guides utilize. "
David Hay (Nov 16 2016 at 16:04):
Any reason that 'Dec.4' is repeated twice in this line: "Sun. Dec. 4 - Ballot total freeze - Dec. 4" ?
otherwise fine...
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2016 at 16:08):
Both fixed. Any other comments before I send it out?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2016 at 16:29):
works for me
Paul Knapp (Nov 16 2016 at 16:31):
Looks good.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 17 2016 at 11:06):
Dates look fine by me.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
