New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2018 DAC CRS codelist updates #249

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Apr 18, 2018

DAC codelists were updated in January 2018. Then in June, and again in July.

This PR was originally for January 2018 updates, but I’ve now rolled in June and July too.

NB this PR was generated using #172.

andylolz added some commits Apr 18, 2018

Add new DAC sector code 24050
This is part of the January 2018 update
Various minor typographical updates
This is part of the January 2018 update
@andylolz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Jun 25, 2018

This PR is two months old now, with no response. It looks to me like a relatively trivial update.

Furthermore, the contents of the update is 6 months old. In fact, there’s also a new update from DAC waiting.

Could someone from @IATI review and merge this, please?

@andylolz andylolz changed the title January 2018 DAC CRS codelist updates 2018 DAC CRS codelist updates Nov 6, 2018

@samuele-mattiuzzo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

samuele-mattiuzzo commented Nov 7, 2018

Hi Andy, thanks for all your reminders and pointers about how old this is between here and Discuss, obviously appreciated! We're sorting a few things out on our side, we'll get to it as soon as time and resources allow. Thanks again :)

@samuele-mattiuzzo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

samuele-mattiuzzo commented Nov 7, 2018

Does #172 need to go in before this? In what capacity are these two issues related?
@andylolz

@andylolz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Nov 7, 2018

Many thanks for your response, @samuele-mattiuzzo!

@samuele-mattiuzzo says:

Does #172 need to go in before this?

This can be treated as independent of #172 (see below for details on this).

This PR represents updates to some replicated (third party) codelists maintained by the DAC. It’s equivalent to #231 (a similar update from last year).

There’s a process for management of these codelists:

We aim to make changes to these lists quickly to allow data users to take advantage of the changes immediately. These changes can be made outside of a formal decimal or integer upgrade process.

[…]

The IATI Technical Team hold regular team meetings once a week. All outstanding proposals will be discussed at that meeting. The IATI Technical Lead (Bill Anderson) has the ultimate responsibility for decisions taken.


@samuele-mattiuzzo says:

In what capacity are these two issues related?

#172 was used to generate this. It’s a script to fetch these (and other) codelists from managed sources, so that someone (ideally someone who isn’t me) can more easily keep an eye on them and keep them up-to-date.

I’m guessing (but no-one has actually told me this) that #172 is blocked while the secretariat waits to see what’s going on with the DAC publishing IATI XML, perhaps with a view to dropping these codelists from the IATI standard? But I’m guessing – I really don’t know. @PetyaKangalova would know better.

@andylolz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Dec 4, 2018

thanks for all your reminders and pointers about how old this is between here and Discuss, obviously appreciated!

@samuele-mattiuzzo My intention wasn’t to point out how old this PR is! It was more to flag that there’s a process for non-embedded codelist management that doesn’t appear to be being followed here – without any explanation why.

Bill has said the plan is to move towards a new sustainable process for updates, which I support (in fact I’ve done some work to that effect!) But I don’t see why that would be a blocker for these updates.

If it’s possible to shed a bit more light on the blockers here, or give some indication of when this might be merged, that would be great.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment