Stream: IG creation
Topic: New expectation for IG balloting/publication
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 29 2019 at 16:52):
On Wednesday, the FMG adopted a new policy that we'd been talking about for a while. Specifically:
- Approval to take an implementation guide to ballot as STU and to publish as STU will typically require that the content be at least at FMM 2. I.e. The content must have been tested at a connectathon or equivalent with at least 3 independently developed systems interoperating across most of the specification content that's being balloted at STU level.
- Projects wishing to ballot as STU without meeting this expectation will need to provide justification as to why getting initial implementation experience prior to balloting is infeasible
- In cases where some of the content has been tested and some not, it will be possible to ballot IG content at mixed levels - i.e. some content at STU and other content still as draft.
- Balloting as "for comment" is still possible with un-tested content, but the expectation is that "for comment" ballots will only occur when there are specific questions the work group has for the broader community that they can't get answers to without making use of the ballot process.
The balloting and publication checklists have been updated to reflect the policy.
If there are any questions/concerns/issues, please let your FMG representative (or me) know.
Eric Haas (Aug 29 2019 at 17:11):
To clarify content what about a IG that:
- profiles based on base resources with FMM < 2 (e.g. , profile MessageDefinition)
- referencing a base resources with FMM < 2 (e.g., referencing MessageDefinition from MessageHeader)
- Using a base resource (unprofiled) with FMM < 2 ( e.g. in DV Alerts may use GraphDefinition out of the box)
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 29 2019 at 17:36):
This isn't about the maturity level of the resources - it's about the maturity level of the IG itself.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 29 2019 at 17:36):
So if you've got a profile on GraphDefinition that only uses 20% of it, but you do a connectathon that covers 80% of your profile, your profile could be FMM2 even though the resource might still be FMM1
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 29 2019 at 17:37):
The concern is that the implementation guide scope has been implemented in connectathon or equivalent prior to balloting - doesn't matter what the maturity level of the FHIR resources are.
Saul Kravitz (Sep 18 2019 at 16:17):
The general balloting instructions don't appear to have been updated -- https://wiki.hl7.org/Balloting_and_Publishing_FHIR_content .
Where are the checklists that have been updated? thx
Grahame Grieve (Sep 18 2019 at 17:39):
which check lists?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2019 at 18:10):
The checklists for IG publication are here: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/HL7/4.++Submission
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2019 at 18:14):
We recognize that it's a bit confusing about where to find things given that we're just starting to transition stuff from wiki to Confluence and we don't have pointers/redirects everywhere we should. (Also, we're probably going to move this set of pages from the HL7 space to the FHIR space given that the checklist is HL7-specific. (@Joshua Procious @Melva Peters )
Melva Peters (Sep 18 2019 at 18:15):
@Lloyd McKenzie we can move as soon as you identify a place for it.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2019 at 18:17):
There's a FHIR space. The location within that space doesn't matter as we can move it in the hierarchy without changing the link.
Joshua Procious (Sep 18 2019 at 18:35):
@Melva Peters what pages all need to be moved?
Melva Peters (Sep 18 2019 at 18:37):
This page and it's children https://confluence.hl7.org/display/HL7/FHIR+Implementation+Guide+Process+Flow
Joshua Procious (Sep 18 2019 at 18:45):
Placed here under "Designers": https://confluence.hl7.org/display/FHIR/FHIR+Implementation+Guide+Process+Flow
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
