FHIR Chat · Next week's call: agenda item

Stream: fmg

Topic: Next week's call: agenda item

Josh Mandel (Nov 05 2020 at 19:19):

For next week's agenda, I'd like to add: Technical correction process. It's complex and slow, with bottlenecks. This may not be something FMG can directly address/improve, but I'd like us to at least understand and brainstorm a bit about recommendations we might make to HL7.

Josh Mandel (Nov 05 2020 at 19:22):

(I'm thinking from a principles perspective: HL7 should be nimble enough to get the best, most correct information to its members and the general public ... in a timely fashion.)

Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 05 2020 at 19:30):

I don't think the issue has to do with not caring...

Josh Mandel (Nov 05 2020 at 21:22):

Fair point -- updated the text to "should be nimble enough" :)

Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 05 2020 at 23:06):

We've had the discussion before. In theory, our move to not use spreadsheets will help, but the publication release process is still a really heavy lift in terms of effort & time for Grahame. So it's really a question of figuring out how to change that.

Josh Mandel (Nov 06 2020 at 02:46):

This isn't just about the core spec -& the bulk data IG was the immediate prompt for me here

Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 06 2020 at 13:13):

Can you summarize the hoops you needed to jump through and how long it took?

Josh Mandel (Nov 06 2020 at 13:57):

I'll see if Dan's willing to do a write-up!

Josh Mandel (Nov 06 2020 at 19:25):

Dan has shared a timeline that I'll post here; I want to be clear that this isn't an exercise in finger-pointing, and much of the slowness is due to my own lack of familiarity with the process. But I'm hoping FMG can brainstorm a bit about how to improve the situation -- both in terms of clarifying the process, and importantly in terms of simplifying the process.

Timeline

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:29):

The gap between 2020-07-13 and 2020-10-01 results from a mis-communication. It was in my queue, but gated waiting for admin approval. I erroneously said TSC but of course it is CTO. But Dan assumed nothing more was needed since I didn't say that, and neither FHIR-I nor Dan actually initiated the admin approval process

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:33):

but Dan has still not made the change I requested and I can't publish until it is made

Josh Mandel (Nov 06 2020 at 19:33):

Indeed! The discussion I'm hoping for is... next time, how do we make sure the process is clear -- and how can it be streamlined so that technical corrections can be more like "available on a continuous basis" rather than "a big project every time"

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:33):

I'm guessing that there's no single document that say 'this is what the pathway is'

Dan Gottlieb (Nov 06 2020 at 19:44):

@Grahame Grieve not sure if you saw my Zulip message from Nov 1, but I updated package-list.json with the 1.0.1 version number. Are there other changes that still need to happen?

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:47):

the header needs to say what it's state is:
image.png

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:47):

Needs to say "Bulk Data Access IG: STU1 + Technical Correction"

Grahame Grieve (Nov 06 2020 at 19:50):

Also, there is no information either in the IG or the package-list.json about what has changed. It needs to be either in the package-list.json (so it ends up on the history page) or on the home page

Dan Gottlieb (Nov 06 2020 at 22:42):

Thanks Grahame! I updated the header and added bullets on the specific changes to package-list.json. I couldn't figure out how to preview a rendered version of package-list.json, but other IGs use markdown in the desc property and I validated the json, so I think it should work.