Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[Still in discussion] Adding SDG goals, targets, indicators to the TagVocabulary codelist #276
Proposal to add SDG goals, targets and indicators to the non-embedded codelist tag vocabulary: https://discuss.iatistandard.org/t/add-sdg-goals-and-targets-to-the-tagvocabulary-codelist/1562
No objection so far. Changes to be reviewed and merged by 4th of December.
The codelist management process is described on the codelist management page:
I’ve highlighted above all the bits that I don’t think happened here. In this sense, I don’t think the process has been adhered to.
I know this is a very minor change, and I know this process might be a bit tiresome. But following an agreed process can help avoid limbo situations like the one we now have on the tag vocab thread.
Another example would be the DAC CRS updates. There has been no objection to this update since it was proposed 7 months ago, but the changes remain unmerged. I understand there’s a plan to move to a more sustainable approach, but I think in the meantime, updates could and should continue to be made.
Sorry to go on about it.
@andylolz It is indeed a mistake on my side - should have been clearer that merging and deployment for this change should not happen earlier than 4th of December (7 days after the response from the tech team on IATI Discuss).
Because the pull request was merged earlier it was picked up in yesterday's deployment of the site. Hence the addition going live on the website. However, there is nothing irreversible. Given the current situation I would suggest that we wait for responses from the community until 4th of December on IATI discuss (as per the 7 day rule) before making changes to this pull request again. I hope that's okay?
I will respond now on Discuss as well.
Thanks @PetyaKangalova – that all sounds fine. Totally agree that the Tag Vocab change can be resolved in a satisfactory way, and agree with your proposed approach.
More generally, if you click through some of the proposals on discuss, you can see that a slightly different process is followed in each case. So even for those of us watching very closely, it’s not always easy to keep track. Sometimes there’s a response from the technical team outlining the process (e.g. here). Sometimes there isn’t (e.g. here). Sometimes there’s a followup, and the subject line prefix is updated (e.g. here). Sometimes there isn’t (e.g. here).
Just to mention again, there was no official response on this DAC codelist update proposal for six months. I’m still a bit unclear where it’s at – it sounds from @bill-anderson’s response that the proposal may have been rejected? If so, shouldn’t it be closed and marked as rejected?