tenderStatus, awardStatus contractStatus: update codes

[JachymHercher]

• Related to Update all status codelists #1160

[jpmckinney]

As mentioned in a comment, we need a "Deprecation note" for the deprecated codes in the CSV files. We should repeat this note in the changelog (it can be abbreviated if needed).

[jpmckinney]

OCDS has been used for PPPs and can ostensibly be used for sale of state assets, etc. Is there another term we can use that works as well as "procurement documents"? If not, then we can keep it as-is, as OCDS is primarily about procurement.

---

Also, for 'planned' we end with "is not yet taking place", and for 'active' we start with "The procurement documents have been published".

I guess it's possible that a process is planned, but the documents are never published (maybe they plan to do a direct award?), such that we need a less specific event for the end of the 'planned' status.

Just flagging in case there's some way to improve here.

[JachymHercher]

We could say "important documents (for example procurement documents)" or "contracting documents (for example procurement documents)". (We can also add other examples than procurement documents, I just don't know the terms :). ) Note that we use "procurement documetns" also in planning, Planning, tender and Tender, so we'd need to change them there.

Concerning the procurement documents, e.g. for a direct award, you are right. In the stage definitions, it's supposed to fall under the looseness of "This information typically concerns...". However, in the status codes, this flexibility is no longer there. I guess we could replace "procurement documents are published" everywhere (i.e codes and Tender etc.) with "procurement documents are available to potential suppliers"?

(Not "potential tenderers", even though we could - see #1398 (comment) - just not to introduce expressions we don't need and OCDS currently doesn't use?)

[jpmckinney]

I think "contracting documents (for example, procurement documents)" is fine, and can be changed in all necessary locations. (It seems some governments even use the term "procurement contracting documents".)

Yes, let's go with "The contracting documents are available to potential suppliers."

Does this mean 'planned' will change to "... but the contracting documents are not yet available to potential suppliers." ?

[JachymHercher]

Done in the last few commits. (I left "procurement documents" in som examples or exampe-like guidance. I did not do a massive review of all the uses of "publish".)

[jpmckinney]

Unlike all the others, here the parenthetical is at the end. Can we move it, for easier comparison by a reader looking to distinguish the two options?

[JachymHercher]

Done in 8aee474. (The sentence before the parentheses is "The contracting process failed." is extremely broad, which is why I originally put the parentheses at the end, but you have large breadth also in the other stages, so it probably isn't a good reason.)

[duncandewhurst]

@jpmckinney based on #1160 (comment), I think that the next step for this PR is for you to review the changes since your last review and for me to address any feedback.

[jpmckinney]

I've honestly lost track of the status of this PR. From your reading, does it resolve the part of #1160 that it intends to address?

I see that I made commits to make it mergeable. And I see that Jáchym had accepted my earlier suggestions, and then made other changes (I assume in response to other suggestions).

If that's all correct, then, yes, I should read it once more.

[jpmckinney]

Besides my suggestions, I think only the changelog needs to be updated.

Merging this PR does leave 1.2-dev in an unstable position (fields are deprecated, without their replacements being implemented).

That said, this PR is over a year old, so better to get this first set of changes committed.

[duncandewhurst]

From your reading, does it resolve the part of #1160 that it intends to address?

It looks to address points 1 and 2 from #1160 (comment), plus a few other changes that I've listed in the changelog.

[jpmckinney]

I just noticed that the deprecation notices inconsistently use dot and slash notation. I think our style guide is to use dot notation here.

[jpmckinney]

If all suggestions accepted, we can merge.

I mostly made deprecation notes more consistent.