24 October 2016 - 09:30 +
25 October 2016 - 13:00
- Briefly discuss each item
- Agree on the plan to analyse and resolve each issue, and document the Action points
- All those with Action points assigned to them to agree to complete them before the face to face April conference meeting
Conclusion of previous Discussions topics:
|Release version control proposal updated to use the actual Release Date + Time instead of EffectiveTime in the Release Package Naming convention|
Dion McMurtrie completed the Alpha release in May 2016 - did anyone have chance to review it? (I haven't had any requests for access to the remainder of the package)
The subject of Modularisation needs to be discussed between the various AG's who are considering the topic, before we can proceed with the Release-specific sections.
Any further thoughts on Continuous Delivery since the previous meeting? None - the only crossover we got was that everyone thought we should discuss this in line with the Member Release period discussion, as once Continuous Delivery comes in then the Member Release period discussion becomes defunct.
The short term proposal of precoordinating the numbers and measures as concepts (and therefore not changing the RF2 format) was generally well accepted, though there were concerns raised regarding the longevity of this approach, and whether or not this addresses the original target of the project (which was to allow a standardised approach across all extensions, instead of perpetuating distinct coding for different users). The other concern raised was that any solution needs to be implemented rapidly, as otherwise the various members will be forced to start/continue implementing their own solutions.
|3||All||Naming convention needs to be specified in order to target the specific Laterality that we're discussing in this respect.|
|4||IHTSDO Release Management Communication Plan review||All|
|5||Perl script in the International Release Package||All||Everyone in agreement that this is a good idea, as long as we clearly communicate the change out, and ensure that the users are a) aware of where to get it now, and b) assured that it still has the same support from IHTSDO as it always has.|
|All||Everyone is now happy with the segregation of the Release Notes from the International edition package (in fact ADHA have already effected this change)|
Most NRC's (Australia, USA, Sweden, etc) were agreed that there was no longer any need for this Member Release period, as they only ever use the Member Release for preliminary internal validation, etc. However, Guillermo Reynoso expressed concerns that the removal of this phase would present a barrier to their support of members such as Netherlands, Uruguay, etc - and also with their translation of the Spanish edition. Andrew Atkinson therefore agreed to put this discussion on hold until we have confirmed the timeline of the Continuous Delivery deployment, as if this will be implemented in 2017 then it will imminently negate the Member Release period, and therefore render this issue redundant.
Everyone confirmed that this was a complicated and subjective discussion, and that the only true constants were the hierarchies themselves, and not the semantic tags which can range across them. Therefore creating this refset was not advised, as it could become misleading.
|9||Beta version in the Browser||All||No-one has an interest in this at present, as everyone who is in a position to evaluate the Releases have already got processes in place for this. The clinical level of review that this type of Beta browser could engender should already have taken place long before we get to the Alpha/Beta stages, and so this shouldn't be encouraged at this point. In particular, this could be dangerous due to the unconfirmed content being too easily accessed and used in clinical systems if we make it available at this stage (whilst simultaneously stating that no-one should use it as such in the Readme file and Release Notes).|
|10||Implementation Load Test||All|
|12||Discussion on the conflict between Extension content and International content||All|
The answer to this may be quite simple:
|13||All||No-one had any issues whatsoever with termMed creating a new namespace for the Spanish edition.|
|14||Any other questions / issues?||All||None - thanks given to everyone for their excellent feedback and input.|