I few people have mentioned that the codelist descriptions for codes 3 (Completion) and 4 (Post Completion) ActivityStatus seem to be mixed up:

http://iatistandard.org/201/codelists/ActivityStatus/

3 - Completion: Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made.

4 - Post Completion: Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made,
but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E

The description for 4 should be with code 3, and vice versa!

These descriptions were added in the 2.01 process, as they do not exist in 1.05: http://iatistandard.org/105/codelists/ActivityStatus/

Do others agree?

Comments (68)

Wendy Rogers
Wendy Rogers

We have been looking at this issue in some depth to try to resolve it in the easiest way possible. As a result we have been looking at how publishers are currently using these values and most do appear to be using them in the order 1,2,3 or 1,2,4,3 if the project does have post delivery activities. Whilst the numbers are not concurrent as might be preferred it is not necessarily a problem that the status values are not consecutive if it is clear when each value should be used? Therefore we would ultimately prefer to make the descriptions clearer with regard to how and when they should be used?

We did also discuss the possibility of re-ordering the values but that of course could only be done at an integer update of the IATI Standard. It would of course also mean that almost every publisher would have to amend their existing published datasets which needless to say is something we would want to avoid due to the great inconvenience it would cause.

Steven Flower
Steven Flower
Image removed. andylolz:

But there’s also the codelist item names. It’s reasonable to assume the status with the English name ‘Post Completion’ comes after ‘Completion’. Similarly, the French name ‘Fermé’ sounds like it comes after ‘Finalisation’.

Yohanna Loucheur are you in agreement with this, too?

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Sorry to revive this thread – I’ve just run into exactly the same issue, and was perplexed by the documentation!

Image removed. Wendy:

Whilst the numbers are not concurrent

That’s part of the issue… But there’s also the codelist item names. It’s reasonable to assume the status with the English name ‘Post Completion’ comes after ‘Completion’. Similarly, the French name ‘Fermé’ sounds like it comes after ‘Finalisation’. So the names don’t really match the descriptions, either.

Image removed. Wendy:

most do appear to be using them in the order 1,2,3 or 1,2,4,3

In that case, perhaps it would be useful to:

  1. Change the names of the codelist items to better reflect the descriptions, and
  2. Consider reordering the codelist items in the documentation? I.e. list item 3 after item 4. Like this:
    Image removed.

    Screen Shot 2017-03-01 at 10.57.31.png631×546 38.3 KB

Wendy Rogers
Wendy Rogers

Thanks for the comments Andy Lulham and it would be good to know what option publishers and others would prefer. If we were to re-order the codelist (and make the change as part of an integer upgrade) would publishers be happy to amend any existing published data or would the effort required outweigh any benefit?

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Thanks Wendy Rogers ! I’ve edited my previous comment to make it clearer that I’m after a solution that wouldn’t require an integer upgrade. I’m fast realising that is tricky!

So just to state: I think it’s okay that the codelist codes don’t proceed in numerically ascending order (according to descriptions and usage). For me, the only problem is that the names and descriptions don’t match, so the documentation is ambiguous. If this could somehow be clarified outside of an integer upgrade (e.g. by reordering the codes in the documentation only, or renaming the codes, or even adding an explanatory note in the documentation) then that would be great.

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

Steven Flower

Agree, the current definitions are confusing. The problem though is i.m.o. not the description, but the naming of the code. Post-completion suggests that this status comes after the completion status. This is not true though. The 'post-completion’ status comes before the completion status.

This would suggest renaming ‘post-completion’ to ‘pre-completion’, leaving the descriptions unchanged.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Image removed. Herman:

This would suggest renaming ‘post-completion’ to ‘pre-completion’, leaving the descriptions unchanged.

Well, note that the descriptions weren’t there at 1.0x: http://iatistandard.org/105/codelists/ActivityStatus/

As I mentioned above, “the names and descriptions don’t match, so the documentation is ambiguous.” So as I see it, the options are:

  • Change the name (e.g. to pre-completion)
  • Change the description(s)
  • Add an explanatory note in the documentation

Of those, I’m most hopeful about option 3, given I suspect the other options will likely be viewed by IATI Technical Team as breaking changes.

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

I have just been reminded of this problem as I closely review (almost) all IATI codelists for translation. Codes 3 & 4 names remain mismatched with their descriptions.

IATI Technical Team , any progress towards a solution? What did you think of the options outlined by Andy Lulham ?

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Absolutely! The code names are in the wrong order (whereas the descriptions are in the right order).

In addition, FWIW, I think the French terms are slightly clearer. “Finalisation” implies that the closing process has started, but it doesn’t say that it’s completed. “Fermé” is unambiguously completed, done, over with. Is it worth trying to clarify the English by replacing “Post-completion” with “Closed”?

BTW, in line with the 1.04 upgrade that replaced all names with codes, the actual codelist is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Names in various languages are simply attached to the codes; changing a name in one language should not be seen as a change to the standard.

Mark Brough
Mark Brough

I support this idea - just change “post-completion” to “closed” to make it clearer, and to switch the descriptions round, to standardise with the French versions. I think it is clear that the names are the correct way round, and the descriptions the wrong way round, because:

  1. the name of the code in English shows this progression (completion is followed by post-completion)
  2. the name of the post-completion code in French is clearly after completion (fermé follows finalisation)
  3. the numerical ordering is logical (an activity lifecycle should follow 1-2-3-4, not 1-2-4-3)

So this would become:

3 | Completion

Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made, but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E

4 | Closed

Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made.

I also think this clearly falls under the category of “bug fixes” so could be implemented as a minor or decimal change (at least switching the descriptions round).

Any edits / objections Yohanna Loucheur Steven Flower Andy Lulham Herman van Loon ?
How do we proceed with this IATI Technical Team ?

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

Andy Lulham , Mark Brough Like your proposal. Agree that this could be in a decimal upgrade, since the actual codes are left unchanged.

Steven Flower
Steven Flower

I just noticed that this post has been filed into “3.01 Integer Upgrade Proposals”. I dont think I did that originally (the first post was July 2015!) so wanted to check IATI Technical Team

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Steven Flower if you click the pencil next to the date on your original post, the edit history includes topic changes. This one was moved to #standard-management:3-01-integer-upgrade-proposals by Petya Kangalova , back in Apr 2017.

I guess the thinking was that this requires an integer upgrade. I was hoping that wouldn’t be the case – or that improvements could be made prior to that.

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur
Image removed. andylolz:

I guess the thinking was that this requires an integer upgrade. I was hoping that wouldn’t be the case – or that improvements could be made prior to that.

I don’t see why this would require an integer upgrade. There are no changes to the codelist, only to the descriptions attached to the codes. We had a similar issue with the Aid Type descriptions and the mistake was simply corrected.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Excellent summary, Mark Brough !

I totally agree about flipping the descriptions. Descriptions were added in v2.01, and it’s clear that these descriptions included a bug. So the standard mechanism that exists to resolve this is as a bugfix.

On changing names: Important to note that Mark’s proposed name change does not change the meaning at all. It’s just for clarity.

Similarly, if we’re changing names, I wonder if “finalisation” is clearer than “completion”. So:

  1. Pipeline/identification
  2. Implementation
  3. *Finalisation
  4. *Closed
Mark Brough
Mark Brough

Happy with this change as well, agree that “Finalisation” is a bit clearer than “Completion”. But also happy to not change the name of code 3 if there are any particular objections to that.

Steven Flower
Steven Flower

Hi All - where are we headed on this?

This codelists continues to cause confusion , in my experience. Can we resolve?

–> all those who’ve commented: Herman van Loon Mark Brough Yohanna Loucheur Andy Lulham Wendy Rogers [~379] Dale Potter + IATI Technical Team

Wendy Rogers
Wendy Rogers

Hi Steven Flower I seem to remember that whilst the codelist could easily be updated to reorder the codes at the next IATI Standard integer update, the issue was actually whether publishers would be happy to retrospectively change all of their existing published data (if required)?

It would therefore be really good to hear the views of publishers on this?

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Hi Wendy
If you read the full thread above, you will see that in fact the codes would not have to be re-ordered. The solution only involves flipping 2 descriptions and changing 2 names.

Given this, I don’t see why publishers would have to change their existing published data. The codes do not change at all. Even if some publishers actually publish the names along with the codes and don’t want to replace with the new names, the codes will remain accurate and machines will still be able to read them.

Therefore, I fully agree with Steven to trea this as a bug fix, as we have done in other cases.

Mark Brough
Mark Brough

Agree with Yohanna Loucheur – I think we have consensus on the proposed solution above, which doesn’t involve changing codes or publishers changing any data, just clarifying names and descriptions of codes.

Would be great if IATI Technical Team could take this forward – we’ve been having this discussion now for almost 3 years about something that is clearly a bug. It would be great to bring it to a conclusion!

Steven Flower
Steven Flower

In terms of next steps, then we could create relevant github issues/pull -requests to get this in action ?

Andy Lulham Mark Brough - interested to help?

IATI Technical Team
IATI Technical Team

Thank you for the useful discussion and apologies for the delay in responding.

Changing the name and description as proposed here results in a change in meaning of the existing codes and associated names and descriptions.This would be considered a breaking change.

We agree that the order of the codes causes confusion. The only change that can be done as a ‘bug fix’ is amending slightly the names of the existing codes to clarify the meaning (not swapping them):

3- From ‘Completion’ to ‘Closed’- keeping the description as before ‘Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made.’

4- From ‘Post-completion’ to ‘Finalisation’- keeping the description as before ‘Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made, but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E.’

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur
Image removed. IATI-techteam:

results in a change in meaning of the existing codes and associated names and descriptions.

This is incorrect. The codes do not change, only the names OR associated description.

I’m confused by the reasoning here. The names are in fact being flipped - going from “Post-completion” to “Finalisation” - in order to not change the descriptions. Why do we care more about not changing the descriptions than the names? Especially when this patch will further entrench the erroneous order of the codes - 4 and 3 - themselves?

As mentioned above, there was a similar situation in the Aid Type codelist, and the correction was treated as a bug fix. Fixing a mistake, which is what these swaped descriptions are, should not require a standard upgrade.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

If anyone arrives fresh to this 38-post mega-thread and is wondering what’s going on, I’d encourage you to read Steven Flower ’s original post, which provides a clear summary of the problem, and a proposed solution.

+1 to Yohanna’s comments.

Image removed. IATI-techteam:

amending slightly the names of the existing codes to clarify the meaning (not swapping them):

3- From ‘Completion’ to ‘Closed’ […]

4- From ‘Post-completion’ to ‘Finalisation’ […]

^^ I think this constitutes swapping the ordering of the names. That’s clear when comparing with the French names:

3- Finalisation
4- Fermé

I.e. the exact opposite of the proposed names.

So to summarise the problem: The names and descriptions currently don’t match. There are two ways to solve this: either swap the names, or swap the descriptions. Leaving it as-is isn’t really an option, since there’s clearly a bug here, and this continues to be a source of ambiguity.

Mark Brough and others propose swapping the descriptions. These descriptions were added in v2.01, so this would be a bugfix for that.

Steven Flower
Steven Flower

Yes, I understood we’d agreed it was a bug fix

Image removed. stevieflow:

In terms of next steps, then we could create relevant github issues/pull -requests to get this in action ?

Shall we just proceed with this?

Mark Brough
Mark Brough

I agree with Yohanna Loucheur , Andy Lulham and Steven Flower , and I understood that we had consensus here. The change we proposed and agreed above is basically to switch the English-language descriptions round. The descriptions were only added in 2.01, and they are clearly in the incorrect order given both the codes and the English names, as well as the French names and descriptions. This is the bug that should be fixed.

Adjusting the names of the codes would make sense as an additional step to improve clarity, and bring them in line with the much clearer French names.

IATI Technical Team , please can you consider proceeding with this proposal as a bug fix, as it appears we have consensus here, and it would be great to bring this issue to a conclusion? It is quite a glaring and confusing error, and this thread is almost three years old now. Many thanks!

Steven Flower
Steven Flower
Image removed. markbrough:

The descriptions were only added in 2.01

Strangely - I can’t see this addition of the ActivityStatus in the 2.01 changelog, nor the original proposals.

There is an indication that this code list might be modified in the color-coded table view for 2.01, but I can’t see where the text is derived from.

At GitHub, we can see that the all changes on this list were undertaken in 2013 & 14.

NB: I’m not trying to “blame” anyone here, but find it interesting in that we can’t pinpoint the exact source of the issue we’re discussing - this is also very important for standards!

Bill Anderson
Bill Anderson

With the greatest of respect four people do not create a consensus - even in the relatively closed world of Discuss.

While no one would disagree that this is a mess and needs fixing, I happen to agree - and always have - with Herman van Loon ’s comment above:

Agree, the current definitions are confusing. The problem though is i.m.o. not the description, but the naming of the code. Post-completion suggests that this status comes after the completion status. This is not true though. The 'post-completion’ status comes before the completion status.

In other words, rightly or wrongly, code 4 (“Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made, but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E”) was defined to come before code 3.

To change the logical order in the meaning of the codes is a breaking change. This may well be a pedantic judgement and the bug fix may well be a pragmatic solution, but messing with standards is a slippery slope …

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur
Image removed. bill_anderson:

Post-completion suggests that this status comes after the completion status. This is not true though. The 'post-completion’ status comes before the completion status.

This is not true. Post-completion indeed comes after the completion status, and makes sense if you think of having completed the activities of the project. This is in line with the IATI standard, where project activies (rather than other aspects or phases of the project) tend to be the focus.

You and Herman base your opinion on the descriptions that were added in 2.01. However, until 2.01 everyone understood the codes and agreed that 4 came after 3 (even though the wording was a bit weird). In 2.01 descriptions were added, and unfortunately got mixed.

Image removed. bill_anderson:

To change the logical order in the meaning of the codes is a breaking change.

Again, not true. We are asking for a bug fix precisely because there is no change to the actual meaning of the codes, which is determined by their names. Post-completion is indeed, and will remain, after completion (of activities).

Bill Anderson
Bill Anderson

Or ©

The codes are not wrong, but the names are wrong.

The descriptions (definitions) were, in my recollection, the original intended definition.

In my view Code 3 = Closed and Code 4 = Finalisation is a valid bug-fix.

I wasn’t aware of any knees jerking. Should I have been??

Mark Brough
Mark Brough

Come on Bill. Changing the order of the codes clearly changes their meaning. And for newcomers to IATI, the idea that 4 comes before 3 will only add more confusion.

Image removed. bill_anderson:

The descriptions (definitions) were, in my recollection, the original intended definition.

Do you have a source for this? Because I cannot find the current descriptions in any of the original consultation documents, whereas the codes and names have remained the same since 1.01. Steven Flower , the first time the descriptions appear is in the 2.01 upgrade process, right at the end in iteration 3, so it is not surprising that there was a mistake introduced here (below screenshot is from the linked Google Doc, clearly showing the descriptions did not exist before).

 

Image removed.

Screen Shot 2018-06-25 at 17.36.32.png1337×181 31.4 KB

Image removed. bill_anderson:

In my view Code 3 = Closed and Code 4 = Finalisation is a valid bug-fix.

In which case, changing the English-language descriptions (introduced only at 2.01) would clearly also be a valid bug-fix, as it does not involve both re-ordering the codes in an illogical way (so that 4 comes before 3) and changing the English and French names.

Mark Brough
Mark Brough

Thanks Bill Anderson for explaining IATI Technical Team thinking here. So, just to be clear:

EITHER (A):

  • the English descriptions (added v2.01) are wrong

OR (B):

  • the codes (added v1.01) are wrong
  • the English names (added v1.01) are wrong
  • the French names (added v1.04) are wrong

By consensus, yes I meant everybody else in this thread has come to the same conclusion (A). I agree that we should not change the standard without good reason, but I think we need to choose between the two options to fix this glaring logical inconsistency soon (again, it has been three years, so we are hardly being impatient or knee-jerk here).

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham
Image removed. bill_anderson:

With the greatest of respect four people do not create a consensus - even in the relatively closed world of Discuss.

So how do we move this forward as a bugfix? What sort of signoff do we need? What’s the protocol here?

Is there some documentation of process that you can refer us to, Bill Anderson ?

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

I see this is now listed as part of a potential integer upgrade:
“[Fix Activity Status Mix Up 2] (agreement reached, but solution changes the meaning of the code and is therefore not backward compatible)”

Image removed.TAG session on reviewing the need for a next minor or major IATI standard upgrade Standard Management

At the TAG 2018, we want to review the community need for a next IATI Standard upgrade. The IATI technical team will run a short session that will focus on the appetite for a next upgrade (minor or major) and discuss the potential timeline if there is a need for one. Before we get to the TAG we want participants to be aware of outstanding minor and major upgrade proposals, and to have a discussion about whether or not they are still relevant. Please refer to all proposals listed below. If you t…

 

I disagree with the statement that the solution changes the meaning of the code. Bill, you stated that clarifying the names was a bug-fix. Hence, correcting the descriptions cannot require an integer upgrade, it’s simply fixing a mistake.

Unfortunately the Discuss post listing the potential changes to the standard is not open for discussion, so I cannot put this comment there.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

There’s now agreement on resolving this as a bugfix, by swapping the descriptions for codes 3 & 4. Please refer to the following post:

Image removed.TAG session on reviewing the need for a next minor or major IATI standard upgrade Modifications, Additions, Improvements

In the interests of peace and progress the Tech Team is happy to treat the Activity Status codes issue as a bug fix. We will slot this into the job queue. (For the record, we still disagree…)

 

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

I understand this is now in the job queue but can someone help me understand when this change is going to take place? We have custom scripts written in our accounting system to assign the codes based on dates and system status. We will need to adjust the script when the definitions change.

Kind Regards,
Michelle

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur
Image removed. Michelle_IOM:

We have custom scripts written in our accounting system to assign the codes based on dates and system status. We will need to adjust the script when the definitions change.

Michelle, if you are assigning proper codes to projects, you probably won’t have to change the script. The codes won’t change.

If you were assigning codes based on the definitions instead of the names, then your projects are miscoded & I’d recommend changing the script as soon as possible. No need to wait for the bug to be fixed since the codes are not changing.

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

@YohannaLoucheur

We assigned codes based on our understanding of the definitions assigned to the codes. I’m still confused now as to what is going to change.

Can someone confirm if I have this correct?

Currently:
3 - completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made
4 - post-completion - same as above BUT the activity remains open pending financial sing off or M&E.

Change will be:
3 - post-completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made BUT the activity remains open pending financial sing off or M&E.
4 - completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made

That sounds strange to me but I sure wasn’t around when all of this was initially discussed. If 3 (three) is really supposed to be something between implementation and completion then wouldn’t it be better to call it post-implementation rather than post-completion?

Happy to discuss this next week at TAG but we go to publish a new set of data the week after so I’d love to make sure we have our scripts right before that.

Sorry if I’m just making a mess of this but, well, consider me a great example on how newbies get lost in all this documentation.

Kind Regards,
Michelle

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Hi Michelle

Image removed. Michelle_IOM:

Change will be:
3 - post-completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made BUT the activity remains open pending financial sing off or M&E.
4 - completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made

Ha, that’s where the confusion lies! You misunderstood the issue: the names and definitions are mismatched, not the codes and names.

The change will be:
3 - completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made BUT the activity remains open pending financial sign-off or M&E
4 - post-completion - physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made

(Sorry, it’s IATI jargon: “completion” describes the state of the activities on the ground, from the point of view of stakeholders / beneficiaries. The project looks like it’s completed on the ground, even though stuff remains to be done on the admin side. “Post-completion” is the real end, nothing remains to tidy up. A project can go from Implementation straight to Post-Completion if everything ends at the same time.

Don’t shoot the messenger, I didn’t come up with these terms )

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

@YohannaLoucheur
Thanks for your patience.

Change will be:
3-Completion = physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made BUT the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E
4 - post-completion = physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made (and no more financial sign off or M&E - all is done, done,done)

I can get my head around that. No need to shoot anyone. On the contrary I may owe you a drink in Kathmandu.

Merci,
Michelle

Bill Anderson
Bill Anderson

Before IATI Technical Team implements this can we have final agreement on the wording. We have agreement on the logic (i.e. 3 comes before 4) but there are differing opinions on naming and the description for 4. Can I propose:

3 - Finalisation
Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made, but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E

4 - Closed
Physical activity, financial sign-off and/or M&E are complete.

re: the description for 4 - I would assume physical activity and financial sign-off are necessary conditions, but M&E could go on for years after an activity has been closed, right?

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

Everything including M&E must be finished before the activity is closed. Yes, it can go on for a while (years even).
There’s a logic there: if M&E is not finished, then further expenses are likely (to pay the M&E work) so the activity remains in finalization status.

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

Dare I suggest that rather than calling it completion and post-completion the order be called

1- pipeline
2 - implementation
3 - post-implementation
4 - completion

Completion, in my head, is that everything is complete and yet that isn’t what we have. We have post-completion which really means the activity itself is physically done but there is paperwork/admin/finance/M&E to do.

Now I have no idea if this is a minor, major or bug or ??? but from a non-tech perspective this makes more sense in terms of descriptions and order of things.

Just a suggestion.
Michelle

Yohanna  Loucheur
Yohanna Loucheur

We already had ‘finalization’ and ‘closed’ proposed to replace “completion” and “post-completion”. I would prefer that option to avoid entirely the use of "post’ - I’m concerned it could create confusion (given there was already a ‘post’-something).

Also, for the record I want to flag that Michelle’s latest response incorrectly describes 'post-completion". Post-completion is the final stage, when everything is done, NOT the penultimate stage when some admin/M&E remains to be done.

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

My post was not indicating what “completion” means but rather how it can be so easily confused as completion by normal (non-iati) definitions is that something is complete with nothing more to do. For IATI it only refers to the physical activity being complete but we all know there is “stuff” to do afterwards hence the use of 'post-completion".

The fact that this discussion string is as long as it is,to me, indicates that words and definitions are clear. As a native English speaker, I figure is I can’t figure it out then there are others who will struggle even further.

Whatever words are chosen I suggest we change them soon and expand the definitions well enough to ensure clarity.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham

Hi Michelle Levesque ,

Both the proposal I made here in April, and the one Bill Anderson made earlier this month remove the word “completion”, so should help avoid the confusion you’re talking about.

Just to restate my proposal (which is slightly different to Bill’s) the codelist would become:

Activity Status Codelist (updated)

Code Name (en) Name (fr) Description (en)
1 Pipeline/identification Planification The activity is being scoped or planned
2 Implementation Actif The activity is currently being implemented
3 Completion Finalisation Finalisation Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made, but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E.
4 Post-completion Closed Fermé Physical activity is complete or the final disbursement has been made , but the activity remains open pending financial sign off or M&E.
5 Cancelled Annulé The activity has been cancelled
6 Suspended Suspendu The activity has been temporarily suspended

I’ve attempted to highlight the changes above, but just to state explicitly, there are two parts to this change:

  • switching the descriptions for codes 3 and 4 (this is necessary)
  • renaming codes 3 and 4 in an attempt to make them a bit clearer, and avoid potentially ambiguous use of “completion” (this is not strictly necessary, but is a nice-to-have that appears to have near-universal support)

A couple of supporting points to mention:

  • The English name change is just for clarity, and doesn’t change the meaning.
  • There are no changes to the French names here. Ever since they were added in Oct 2013, they’ve always been Planification, Actif, Finalisation, Fermé, Annulé et Suspendu (in that order). So the renaming here would bring the English names in line with the French.
  • In v1.0x, there were no codelist descriptions. These were first added at v2.01, and that’s where this confusion started. That’s the key reason we think it makes more sense to fix the descriptions. This thread starts with Steven Flower flagging the bug back in July 2015, and proposing that the descriptions should be switched.

After Bill Anderson ’s message prior to the TAG, I thought we’d resolved this issue. However, I see now that perhaps the details were still up in the air. I agree with Michelle Levesque that it would be great to get this resolved soon.

IATI Technical Team
IATI Technical Team

Thanks everyone for the clarifications and suggestion.

We will proceed with making the below changes to the activity status codelist as a bug fix and will implement by Tuesday 4th of December.

 

Image removed.

image.png1059×452 43.4 KB

We will also update this post once changes are live on the website.

Steven Flower
Steven Flower

Great to see! Thanks all

It’s a shame that we have no changelog notice alongside this, however (see transactionType for an example). I understand this documentation routine was removed during the upgrade to 2.03 ?

Given there is a change in this codelist, it would seem very useful to include a notice for people to understand when this took place, and the underlying discussion that informed it.

Andy Lulham
Andy Lulham
Image removed. stevieflow:

Great to see! Thanks all

Agreed!

Image removed. stevieflow:

Given there is a change in this codelist, it would seem very useful to include a notice for people to understand when this took place, and the underlying discussion that informed it.

Absolutely right. I’ve created a ticket for this, and have sent the requisite pull requests ([v2.01] [v2.02] [v2.03]).


Please log in or sign up to comment.