Notes from Standards Day

Bill Anderson • 17 March 2017

Here is a summary of decisions and discussions from Standards Day

  • As the comment handler is not great in Google Sheets could you restrict comments on the sheet to minor points. Can you address any major issues by replying to this topic.
  • We have another version of this with a more detailed record of named comments which we thought it would be better to hold back for reference as it makes the proceedings as a whole difficult to follow.
  • The sheet follows the order of slides used on the day.
  • Rows are shaded to group multiple slides addressing a single issue.
  • All issues have been categorised with one of four outcomes: Accept; Reject; Consult further; or None. (Accept/Reject refer, of course, to consensus, and not formal decisions)

The Technical Team is meeting next week to plan next steps on consultations for Version 2.03 and issues that need to go to the Members Assembly in June. We will do our best to ensure coherence and continuity in ongoing discussions.

Thanks to [~462], [~395], [~353] and [~367] for their work on this.

Comments (4)

Mark Brough

Thanks for the clear document, Bill! One question re item 72 - Core funding, which mentions Trust Funds –

At Standards Day it was stated that a methodology for publishing data on Trust Funds had been discussed and agreed during one of the TAG sessions. This document outlines what I think was the discussed approach, but mentions (last slide) “No easy solution to showing fungible incoming funds to TF as a whole”. The notes suggest [~295] had a suggestion on process / guidance - is that what was agreed among those in the room?

We’ve thought about this a little in Bangladesh and will become more important to tackle this going forward so would be good to see if there is a solid workable approach here that has consensus and can be clearly documented, or if we still need more thinking on this.

Pelle Aardema

Hi Mark,
In fact the dicussion at IATI TAG diverged quite a bit from the presentation you linked to.

I presented a possible solution for representing trust funds in IATI based on the NL IATI guidelines. I think we were close to consensus. I’ll set up a separate thread regarding Trust and/or Pooled Funds.

Hayden Field

With regards to Slide 93 (row 82) - tightening should to must in Introduction - Structured - Definition

I am unable to locate anywhere within the Standard that explicitly states that Rulesets (machine-readable Rules) are mandatory. The nearest is the first paragraph of the Rulesets introduction which states that they are instructions.

  • If it is agreed that Rulesets are indeed mandatory at present and so must be followed (the likely intended implication of calling them instructions), this should be made more explicit (either as a separate proposal, or an extension of this one).
  • If the wording is taken strictly as-is (nothing explicitly says they are mandatory, therefore they are optional), making the referenced change would be an integer rather than decimal modification.

Please log in or sign up to comment.