FHIR Chat · Da Vinci CDEX January Ballot Block Vote 1 & 2 · Da Vinci

Stream: Da Vinci

Topic: Da Vinci CDEX January Ballot Block Vote 1 & 2

---

Eric Haas (Feb 11 2021 at 22:59):

For the Da Vinci CDEX v0.2.0 January Ballot 32 trackers have been grouped into Block Vote 1 and Block Vote 2 with proposed dispositions created and available for your review below. The vote for these blocks is scheduled for the next Patient Care Co-Chair Call Monday Feb 22nd 05:00 PM (Eastern Time, GMT -04 DST). If there are any items below that you would like to withdraw from the block vote for discussion please email me or respond on this stream.

CDEX Implementation Guide Ballot Build

Call details: Join Zoom Meeting - https://zoom.us/j/5328571160 | Meeting ID: 532 857 1160 | +1 929-436-2866-US (New York) | Find your local number: Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aemmW7I5Zo

Eric Haas (Feb 11 2021 at 22:59):

Block 1

Issue key: Resolution, Summary (Reporter)

---

1. J#30832 Not Persuasive The content of this IG wasn't quite ready for ballot. What HL7 process improvement is needed to prevent this in the future? (Isaac.Vetter)
2. J#30831 Not Persuasive More missing content. (Isaac.Vetter)
3. J#30830 Not Persuasive with Modification Data Consumer Server SHOULD support Claim. (Isaac.Vetter)
4. J#30828 Persuasive If a tree falls in the forest … (Isaac.Vetter)
5. J#30827 Persuasive with Modification Minor suggestion for accuracy (Isaac.Vetter)
6. J#30825 Persuasive Profiles page is empty (Isaac.Vetter)
7. J#30823 Persuasive awesome content (Isaac.Vetter)
8. J#30811 Considered - No action required Affirmative vote on specificaton. (cbenaim)
9. J#30500 Persuasive with Modification Update Figure 1 (celine_lefebvre)
10. J#30498 Not Persuasive with Modification Explicitly reference the Da Vinci Guiding Principles in a Privacy and Security section. (celine_lefebvre)
11. J#30445 Persuasive FHIR_IG_CDex_R1_D2_2021JAN (christol.green)
12. J#30442 Persuasive Vote A-S FHIR_IG_CDex_R1_D2_2021JAN (christol.green)
13. J#30440 Persuasive VOTE A-S FHIR_IG_CDex_R1_D2_2021JAN Section 1 (christol.green)
14. J#30148 Persuasive with Modification Failed task or task without result? (feisenberg)
15. J#30147 Persuasive with Modification HRex link broken CapabilityStatement: Data Consumer Client CapabilityStatement - and reference needs description (feisenberg)
16. J#30146 Persuasive with Modification Section 2.4 - DEQM references (feisenberg)
17. J#28158 Persuasive with Modification Add C-CDA documents section (from HRex) (lloyd)
18. J#26855 Not Persuasive CDex documents require signature, but don't explain how used (lloyd)

Eric Haas (Feb 11 2021 at 23:00):

Block 2

Issue key: Resolution, Summary (Reporter)

---

1. J#31050 Persuasive correct last example bullet (ehaas)
2. J#30866 Not Related Short definition of Task.basedOn is not correct (pknapp)
3. J#30864 Persuasive with Modification Remove '?' or correct the section name if it is in question (pknapp)
4. J#30860 Persuasive No content on this page. (Thomson.Kuhn)
5. J#30859 Not Persuasive It seems inappropriate to require support for an unpublished IG. (Thomson.Kuhn)
6. J#30853 Persuasive Reword statement. (Thomson.Kuhn)
7. J#30851 Not Persuasive The paragraph should be relocated. (Thomson.Kuhn)
8. J#30850 Not Persuasive with Modification Relocate paragraph. (Thomson.Kuhn)
9. J#30849 Persuasive with Modification Explain how this guide might improve HEDIS scores. (Thomson.Kuhn)
10. J#30848 Not Persuasive with Modification Awkward wording. (Thomson.Kuhn)
11. J#30847 Persuasive with Modification Cite evidence for this claim. (Thomson.Kuhn)
12. J#30843 Persuasive with Modification Standards may help with consistency during exchange, but they can’t fix errors and omissions in the sources. (Thomson.Kuhn)
13. J#30839 Considered - Question answered What role is left for CDex (Thomson.Kuhn)
14. J#30834 Persuasive Suggest to put a hyperlink here. (hbuitendijk)

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 03:54):

Pull 30832 (we didn't answer his question about process to avoid this happening in the future);
Pull 30831 - the fact the renderer is currently dumb doesn't mean we don't need to fix
Revamp 30830 - Disposition doesn't match proposed resolution detail. Suggest this be flagged as Persuasive
There are several "request in person" issues that we're not finding persusive, which therefore aren't eligible for block vote (e.g. 30498). If there's in-person requested, you can only schedule for block vote if you've discussed the proposed resolution with the person off-line and they're ok with it or if you're finding it persuasive
Can we fix the descriptions for 30442, 440, 445?
Pull 26855 - We've had a fair bit of discussions on signature. I don't recall the agreement on yanking it?

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:13):

re 26855 there is no longer a profile composition to hang a signature on. do you have a proposal in mind?

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:18):

There are several "request in person" issues that we're not finding persusive, which therefore aren't eligible for block vote (e.g. 30498). If there's in-person requested, you can only schedule for block vote if you've discussed the proposed resolution with the person off-line and they're ok with it or if you're finding it persuasive

oops I missed those and will reach out to see if they want to pull

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:19):

BTW the in person flag is pretty discrete and hard to find can you make it more obvious?

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:26):

Hey @Isaac Vetter are you OK with J#30832 even though you ask for a process and in person review, this is a technical error rather than a conscious omission of content.

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 04:27):

No way to change how it appears. The most I can do is control the order in which the 'people' fields are listed, and not sure that makes sense to change.

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:28):

Lloyd McKenzie said:

No way to change how it appears. The most I can do is control the order in which the 'people' fields are listed, and not sure that makes sense to change.

??? in response to?

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 04:28):

Question on "in-person" flag

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 04:28):

No specific proposal on 26855, just want to discuss briefly on call to make sure everyone's on-board. If you don't get a response from the in-person ones, you'll have to pull. You need positive agreement for them to stay in the block vote.

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:28):

i was hoping you could make bright red an bold

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 04:29):

No control over rendering I'm afraid

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 04:30):

At least not without manually embedding custom javascript that's subject to breakage every time we update to a new Jira release (which is 4+ times/year)

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:33):

RE: Pull 30831 - the fact the renderer is currently dumb doesn't mean we don't need to fix

I will clarify in the disposition why the table is empty....

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:45):

RE J#30498 we discussed on Wed Call with Celine on call remember :-)

Eric Haas (Feb 12 2021 at 04:53):

The other in person is Isaac's above so i only missed one!

Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 12 2021 at 05:19):

30831 - please pull for discussion, don't just want an explanation

Eric Haas (Feb 22 2021 at 22:26):

block vote with the above three items pulled and corrections made as discussed, approved 2/22/2021.

---

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC