Stream: fmg
Topic: Future agenda item
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 07 2021 at 21:33):
https://jira.hl7.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12005
and what we want to do about it :)
Brian Postlethwaite (Apr 07 2021 at 21:34):
Specifically this part:
image.png
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 08 2021 at 01:56):
Those FHIR-I folks are trouble...
Josh Mandel (Apr 12 2021 at 15:38):
TSC has some comments / questions on the git policy which we should discuss before making updates. One area is the "no jira issue" statement for technical corrections; the TSC minutes from today's call should capture items for us to review.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 13 2021 at 13:15):
We've never said "no jira issue". We have said "no vote required". We also don't require committers to submit jira issues when fixing technical corrections before normative. (We don't want to impose a cost that discourages people from fixing spelling, formatting and similar errors.)
Josh Mandel (Apr 13 2021 at 13:53):
The language in question is just what you said: "we also don't require committers to submit jira issues when fixing technical corrections before normative"
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 13 2021 at 16:43):
So they want a Jira issue when Grahame goes in and fixes typos across 30 resources? Why?
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 13 2021 at 16:49):
We have traceability about who makes the commit that makes the change. Main reason for Jira items prior to normative is so that we surface what changes/enhancements are happening so people can engage with the change. There's no engagement needed around fixing grammar, spelling, broken links, etc.
Josh Mandel (Apr 13 2021 at 16:58):
You and I are in violent agreement, @Lloyd McKenzie . I wonder if @Wayne Kubick has suggestions for how to make this case most effectively.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 13 2021 at 17:02):
One question is whether there was ever formal documentation when a CDA author fixed a typo in Trifolia or a v2 editor updated a spelling error in the MS Word source for v2? I'm quite certain the answer is "no".
Wayne Kubick (Apr 13 2021 at 17:38):
I agree with you both. I think a large part of the problem is that people have trouble differentiating changes to ANSI normative specifications vs. STUs, the latter of which comprise most of our work. We don’t need to treat STUs as normative, though we still need to follow our processes for STUs because we’ll be audited on that by ANSI as our accreditation body. The important thing is that we have documented, predictable, consistent processes that are reproducible for an audit. I should think we can demonstrate that sufficiently for TSC though we may need to make some GOM updates.
Wayne
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 13 2021 at 18:31):
The only 'tricky' bit for me is that technical correction Jira items don't require vote even if against normative content. I personally think that's fine as at least there's a record of the change as well as the commit. If someone disagrees that a fix is truly a technical correction, they can holler. Voting on them just feels like unnecessary administrivia.
Josh Mandel (Apr 19 2021 at 17:51):
For this Wednesday's or Next week's call: would like to get to a decision on FHIR-31720? -- would like to have a clear decision in time for the connectathon, so our Subscriptions track can focus on the right thing.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
