2019-10-30 FHIR Squad Call

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fddec023998>

The FHIR Squad meeting is this Wednesday, October 30 at 6pm Nairobi | 3pm UTC | 11am EDT | 8am PDT.

Questions to Answer:

  • Which use cases should the FHIR module support first?
  • What are the barriers to implementing the selected use cases?

Agenda:

  • Current module work updates (5 mn)
  • Select use cases to focus on (10mn)
  • FHIR module case study (15mn)
  • Roadmap to implementing use cases (20mn)
  • RFC process review (10mn)

Who : Anyone is welcome to join this discussion and we look forward to seeing @pmanko @janflowers @ccwhite23 @jdick @mogoodrich @ball @akanter @ckemar @corneliouzbett @dkayiwa @jmaxy @jamesfeshner @ibacher @jteich @burke @mseaton

Weekly Calendar invite: https://iu.zoom.us/meeting/v5MscO2srDMrgdduNbTNwBFJhL9NvXi2KQ/ics?icsToken=6fd92bd29b660e0185c35548f4df663d52e11e9ac391c9192f1c057666566144

Where : Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://iu.zoom.us/j/271744281

Or Telephone: Dial: +1 669 900 6833 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 271 744 281 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/adeN7jZCo3

Or connecting from IU videoconferencing equipment: Video Bridge: 26 271 744 281

Or connecting from videoconferencing equipment outside of IU: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 221.122.88.195 (China) 115.114.131.7 (India) 213.19.144.110 (EMEA) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 209.9.211.110 (Hong Kong) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 271 744 281

SIP: 271744281@zoomcrc.com

Or Skype for Business (Lync):

Zoom Video

Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting now

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference…

Meeting notes

1 Like

Thanks for the great call today everyone! I’m really excited about the decision to focus for the first use cases being lab and medications. Were there any other specific decisions from the call that we should summarize for the community at-large here? @ccwhite23

In response to this:

  • JJ proposes a one approver policy
    • Squad agrees to move to one reviewer

Is that because there are no people to review? My humble advice is that, since the people raising these pull requests and the reviewers are both new to the module, it would be safer to require two reviews than one. With time, as they both get more comfortable with the code base, this can be changed to less. More reviews also have the added advantage of helping people get more familiar and up to speed with the code base. It does not hurt to have a pair of eyes on ones’ code. :slight_smile:

1 Like

@dkayiwa - yes this is because we currently only have two people actively working on the code for the module.

@dkayiwa you make a great point about people here learning, and having two people could improve the oversight of the quality of the code. Let’s do this as a continuous improvement process, starting with single, keeping an eye on the result of that, and then revising to have two if needed?