Stream: fmg
Topic: FHIR Community Process
Grahame Grieve (May 20 2019 at 13:30):
I'd like to talk about this http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Community_Process this week please
Lloyd McKenzie (May 20 2019 at 14:29):
The fact that HL7 (on its own) gets to define and change the rules for the FCP is likely to raise some angst around external organizations. I think we need to more clearly define governance here to give non-HL7 groups a sense that they'll have an ability to provide input and time to respond to proposed changes.
Should we tie this to any tracking/publication of maturity levels (or expect that FCP participants will either use HL7's maturity levels or define their own?
Should we enforce anything around source control/requirements for access to source?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 22 2019 at 21:39):
I won't be around when this gets discussed on the call next. @Grahame Grieve, when you have time, can you respond to my questions/comments above?
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 21:50):
the governance will transition to the coordination committee, but HL7 will always retain overall control courtesy of the trademark. Obviously i am talking to other organizations about those issues
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 21:50):
and that's one reason it's not yet clearly defined.
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 21:51):
I had not intended to make the ink to maturity levels explicit; my grounds for this is that the maturity model naturally will leverage these things anyway
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 21:52):
I think that it would good for FCP participants to use maturity level themselves, but I don't think we should insist on it
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 21:52):
now did I feel that it was necessary for the source to be open, though I think it should be
Lloyd McKenzie (May 22 2019 at 22:01):
If source isn't open, there should be some sort of mechanism in place where the community can gain access to the source if a project is no longer able/willing to maintain it.
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 22:04):
that's clearly implied already
Lloyd McKenzie (May 22 2019 at 22:04):
I like explicit more than implied :)
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 22:06):
explicit is also problematic because it's usually over detailed. What we do say is this:
FCP Participants are responsible for providing ongoing maintenance of their projects and published IGs. If FCP Participants close projects, or if the FCP Participant itself is closed or ceases to act as a FCP Participant, it is expected to make arrangements internally or with other FCP Participants to take over management of the project and/or its outputs
Lloyd McKenzie (May 22 2019 at 22:14):
Can we throw in "(e.g. through public source repository, escrow or other mechanisms)"?
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 22:54):
ok done
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
