Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: Block Vote
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 13 2021 at 02:51):
The following items were marked as "TSC-Delay" when we reviewed them during our calls while the ballot was open. This block vote is to apply the resolutions agreed during the calls.
FHIR#29685 Bert Roos Persuasive with Modification
FHIR#31051 Cooper Thompson Persuasive
FHIR#30696 Gino Canessa Not Persuasive with Modification
FHIR#30697 Gino Canessa Persuasive with Modification
FHIR#30694 Gino Canessa Persuasive
FHIR#30373 Jenni Syed Persuasive
FHIR#31567 Josh Mandel Persuasive with Modification
FHIR#32069 Lloyd McKenzie Persuasive
FHIR#32151 Paul Lynch Persuasive
FHIR#31082 Rick Geimer Persuasive with Modification
FHIR#30693 Rick Geimer Persuasive
FHIR#30795 Rik Smithies Persuasive
FHIR#30809 Sean McIlvenna Persuasive
FHIR#31710 Tilo Christ Persuasive
FHIR#27535 Ward Weistra Not Persuasive
FHIR#30878 Weiyu Zhang Persuasive with Modification
@Bert Roos @Cooper Thompson @Gino Canessa @Jenni Syed @Josh Mandel @Paul Lynch @Rick Geimer @Sean McIlvenna @Tilo Christ @Ward Weistra @Weiyu Zhang
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 13 2021 at 02:51):
Block vote will be on our regular call next week - July 19
Gino Canessa (Aug 17 2021 at 20:57):
As a note (since I was just looking up something in one of those tickets), the vote has happened but none of tickets have been updated.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 05:41):
The next block vote for FHIR-I is here: https://jira.hl7.org/issues/?filter=16542
I was somewhat assertive about proposing block vote candidates, so please review these and make sure you're comfortable with the resolutions. (Especially for ones where I was the submitter ;) ) If you're not comfortable with any of these resolutions, post here or on the list server or mention it on our call. We will take this block vote up on our call on Feb. 7, giving a full 2 weeks for review.
@Aditya Joshi, @Alexander Henket, @Bas van den Heuvel, @Bert Roos, @Brian Postlethwaite, @Bryn Rhodes, @Chris Grenz, @Colin E., @Cooper Thompson, @Corey Spears, @David McKillop, @David Pyke, @Elliot Silver, @Eric Haas, @Fred Hersch, @Gino Canessa, @Grahame Grieve, @Jean Duteau, @Jenni Syed, @Jim Steel, @Joe Paquette, @John Moehrke, @Josh Mandel, @Kees van Bochove, @Ken Sinn, @Lee Surprenant, @Marco Visser, @MaryKay McDaniel, @Morten Ernebjerg, @Nick Radov, @Oliver Egger, @Paul Church, @Paul Lynch, @Ramandeep Dhanoa, @Reece Adamson, @Richard Moldwin, @Rick Geimer, @Rob Hausam, @Ron Shapiro, @Sean McIlvenna, @Shamil Nizamov, @Tilo Christ, @Vadim Peretokin, @vency menezes, @Ward Weistra, @Weiyu Zhang
Jean Duteau (Jan 23 2022 at 05:43):
your filter is private so I can't see the block vote
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 23 2022 at 05:44):
Same here
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 05:45):
Sorry. Fixed.
Jean Duteau (Jan 23 2022 at 05:47):
Lloyd McKenzie said:
Sorry. Fixed.
nope, not fixed yet...
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 07:35):
Proposed resolution of J#35811 appears to only address half of the issues raised in the ticket.
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 07:39):
Proposed resolution of J#34345 doesn't address whether a one version of a containing resource can reference a contained resource in an earlier version of the containing resource.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 16:41):
@Elliot Silver J#35811 seems to make super clear that UTF-8 is the only option. What additional clarity is needed?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 16:42):
I've updated J#34345
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 16:44):
The rest of ‘811 is to clarify that application/FHIR isn’t actually a recognized mime type.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 16:45):
Right, but the proposed language drops the reference to application/FHIR entirely, removing the need for that clarification.
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 16:48):
Got it. Missed that you were replacing the whole sentence.
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 16:52):
Add “contained” to “references another resource” in ‘345 and I’m happy.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2022 at 17:53):
How about this version?
Elliot Silver (Jan 23 2022 at 18:27):
Good to go.
Paul Church (Jan 24 2022 at 16:43):
J#27215 - doesn't seem to have any proposed resolution?
J#34278 - "conditional" (instead of specifying a resource ID, specify a search) is a completely different thing than "If-Match" (specify an ETag and abort if the resource has been modified). I think the intent here is that servers that support patch shall support patch with optimistic locking (a.k.a. ETags and If-Match). Also I'm not sure what "version specific patch operations" means exactly, if we mean If-Match we should just say so. TL;DR we should pull this one and discuss.
Everything else looks good.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 24 2022 at 16:47):
J#27215 - Looks like tag wasn't removed when it was block-voted as deferred and remained when it got reactivated. Dropped the tag. This one will not be block voted.
Eric Haas (Jan 24 2022 at 18:16):
pull FHIR#34385 since the proposed change :
"a required binding with a Value Set that enumerates the list of possible codes in the value set (formally called an extensional definition)"
not resolve the question what this parenthetic comment means in this context. I would prefer it removed or discuss what it means.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 24 2022 at 18:33):
What it means is what's listed before. It's a term that shows up all over in HL7 and some value set tooling, so it's just giving a heads up to the reader that if they see the term "extensional value set", that's what it means.
Eric Haas (Jan 24 2022 at 19:17):
still confused and still want it discussed... When I read it, I think " a required binding that used to be an extensional binding? how is that a thing?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 25 2022 at 00:30):
extensional and extensible have nothing to do with each other...
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 25 2022 at 00:30):
In any case, pulled.
Eric Haas (Jan 25 2022 at 01:32):
ok I misread it ... can keep in. :rolling_eyes:
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 25 2022 at 02:10):
And unpulled... :)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
