Version 2.03 Decimal Upgrade - Index of Proposals

(IATI Technical Team) #3

(John Adams) #4

Does anyone have the 2.03 proposals in a spreadsheet format?

I’d like to be able to review them with the team in bulk - looking for opportunities to improve our stuff - and also likely challenges…

Exchange Rate Options (excluded 2.03)
(Petya Kangalova) #5

@JohnAdams Currently we don’t have all proposals in a spreadsheet format. I’ll be creating one now for the next stage of the upgrade, including all proposals under consideration, and will post it by early next week at the very latest.

(Andy Lulham) #6

The list above appears to suggest the Non-statistical secondary sectors is included in the 2.03 proposals, but the proposal itself says it is excluded.

Is that an error, or is it to indicate that the <tag> amendment is to be taken forward as a new proposal?

(Bill Anderson) #7

Thanks @andylolz, the intention was indeed to indicate that replaces it, but I agree it is confusing. We’ll amend …

(Bill Anderson) #8

Progress as of 16 August

We are behind schedule for two reasons:

  • Firstly, there have been a number of private communications questioning the content of this upgrade and requesting a postponement until after the Members’ Assembly. My response to these requests has been to ask those involved to voice their concerns in public on this site. Furthermore decimal upgrade rules require consensus for items to be included and it is thus the prerogative of any IATI member to object to any or all proposals. (A paper destined for the Members’ Assembly on revised upgrade proposals will be published on this site next week. I trust we can thrash it into a workable agreement before we get to Rome.)
  • Secondly discussions have been ongoing on a number of the new proposals relating to Results and Humanitarian issues. Our rules allow for an extension of the consultation period in order to try and reach consensus.

Here is a link to a table summarising progress we have made to date.

[Update - 18 August. Rows with consensus (Yes) or (No) in parentheses show the expected outcome based on current interactions.]

To explain the table:

  • The first column shows the type of change
  • Management (of codelists and organisation identifiers)
  • Modifications to the existing standard
  • New content
  • The second column is a thematic description of the content
  • Codelist management
  • Humanitarian
  • Miscellaneous
  • Results
  • Traceability and Hierarchies
  • The third column is the state of consensus
  • Yes = consensus
  • No = objections have been received that have not been resolved
  • ? = item requires further subject matter expertise input or clarification of queries that may lead to objections

Before moving ahead I would like to point out that we are lacking consensus on all humanitarian proposals. If we are to go ahead with the upgrade at this stage, excluding all proposals on which we do not currently have consensus, what message is this going to send to the world about IATI’s commitment to being fit-for-purpose for humanitarian publishing?

I would also like to point out that the community committed to improving results publishing is divided and consensus has not been reached on a couple of new proposals. The bigger pity is that many of these divisions are not being aired in public.

(As an exercise in transparency this upgrade has had it challenges …)

Can we make one last effort to find common ground on some of these issues?

Final Proposal of 2.03 Content
(Bill Anderson) #9

Progress is being made in reaching further consensus and I am updating the table in line with current consultations.

I have changed a number of statuses to (Yes) or (No) indicating the likely outcome of current interactions.

(John Adams) #10

What has happened the Cash Transfers proposal? Are there proposals elsewhere that cover that? @bill_anderson @petyakangalova @ximboden

(John Adams) #11

It’s great that there seems to be emerging consensus on the Results and other issues. Thanks everyone for coming together and constructively trying to seek solutions.

We would like to achieve consensus for the remaining items on the table, particularly the humanitarian elements. In order to do that, we would like to hold a group conference call.

We want to make sure we have a good range of people on the call, so that we can hear a number of voices, including from those who wish to use the data effectively.

The IATI Tech Team will set up the call, please do your best to participate and help us to reach consensus.

(Wendy Rogers) #12

@JohnAdams I have now provided an update on the Cash Transfer proposal

(Pelle Aardema) #13

Will the time and date of the call be posted here?

(Martin Akerman) #14

Dear John and Co,

Please kindly add me to the Humanitarian call.


(Bill Anderson) #15

Here is a Doodle poll with options for a call between 29 August and 6 September. Please could everyone who is involved in the outstanding issues register their interest.

(Bill Anderson) #16

If anyone is aware of colleagues who should be on this call but who are on leave until the end of August, could you put a placeholder on the poll for them?

(Andy Lulham) #17

Could it be made clear that private communications will be made public so that these can then be reposted (either anonymously or otherwise)? Then a more complete picture is at least available to everyone.

(John Adams) #18

All, last chance to register on the Doodle poll for the call on humanitarian upgrades to 2.03.

Flagging to @theo.sande @Herman @YohannaLoucheur and anyone else who would like to be involved.

(Herman van Loon) #19

@JohnAdams Thanks John for reminding me. I missed this post.

(Herman van Loon) #20

@andylolz See this topic for the discussion on earmarking humanitarian aid activities in IATI and this topic for our more general concerns about the alignment of the IATI standard with IATI’s mission and goals.

(Andy Lulham) #21

Thanks @Herman. But as you demonstrate, those are things that have been posted in public. I’m referring to the “divisions … not being aired in public” that @bill_anderson mentions. I’d love to see a policy of IATI republishing those, in order to facilitate informed discussions.

(Herman van Loon) #22

@OJ_ might also want to join