Governance of future changes to the specification looks like

[fretchen]

This issue was raised by @goergen95 in the discussion of #21 . I will cite the initial statement here for clarity:

Currently there is the lack of a clear process how the governance of future changes to the specification looks like. This is very much required if KfW wants to make it legally binding for partners to adhere to the specifiation. Then, partners need to know which version is the legally binding one, how changes are being handled on what that means for them during the lifetime of a project.

Let us see how we can gain some clarity.

[goergen95]

Thanks for opening this. FYI, I will be working on a proposition, as suggested in the original comment, but it will take me some time to prepare it. Could post updates here though, in case you interested in updates?

[fretchen]

No hurry there I would argue.
Only curiosity ;)
One more thing. Are we thinking in part also about the discussion in #9 ?

[goergen95]

hmm, for me these are two different governance processes. What I would like to discuss here is how versioning/changes to the data specification are handled. That is not directly related to the governance of the data collection process, even-though it will without doubt benefit from a clear governance of the specification itself. In other words, I think there might be a dependency of the issues discussed in #9 on the outcome of the discussion here.

[fretchen]

@goergen95 now that we have made it to a first version it would be really cool to know what suggestions you have to avoid a dependency hell. Would be really helpful for the project to ensure the leanest possible maintainability...