Clarify contracting process, record and ocid, define planning process (866) #1216

JachymHercher · 2021-02-14T15:17:12Z

closes #866 (except the two new tickets to be opened on the basis of the last paragraph of #866 (comment))

together with #1208, closes #903

…ition of release. To be checked: I've used \\n\\n to create new paragraphs in the schema. I'm not sure that'll work and I'm not sure whether this should be preceded / followed by spaces (I follow by a space but do not preceed, but I'm afraid that will lead to indentation on the first row of the new paragraph.)

jpmckinney · 2021-04-20T04:09:02Z

@JachymHercher Is this still draft?

Add "Contracting and planning processes" section to the Mapping the hard cases of the Guidance. Rename "unsuccessful procedures" and "pre-qualification". Minor updates in other parts of the documentation. Also: change definition of contracting process from "aimed at concluding"to "aimed at implementing".

See #903 (comment)

jpmckinney · 2021-07-29T22:28:57Z

Hi @JachymHercher, this PR now conflicts quite severely with other changes you (and maybe others) made in other PRs. My suggestion would be to:

Get a clean version of the 1.2-dev branch, e.g.
```
 git checkout 1.2-dev
 git pull --rebase
```
Start a new branch
Look at this PR's changes at https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1216/files and/or download the PR's changes from https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/open-contracting/standard/pull/1216.patch
Replicate the desired changes to the new branch. You can perhaps copy-paste the lines starting with + to the new branch, while paying attention to any changes others might have made to those lines.

Would that work? If not, we can perhaps resolve all the conflicts together on a call.

Signed-off-by: Yohanna Lisnichuk <[email protected]>

yolile · 2021-07-30T16:08:07Z

@yolile Since this is the most significant clarification/change in 1.2, please also review.

It looks good for me, but should we also update, after merging this, the unsuccessful tender example to have 1 ocid for the planning stage, then another one for the unsuccessful tender, and finally a third one for the successful tender? And, here, for the third ocid, are we going to have two entries in the related process array, one for the unsuccessful tender and another one for the planning stage?

And, should we also update all the other JSON/worked examples where the planning stage is used?

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T16:21:38Z

I'll restore the "Furthermore" construction, as mentioned in my recent comments in #866.

In terms of loose ends:

The challenges/hacks for representing multi-stage procedures in OCDS 1.x is a major issue, so it is important to direct people to an issue where they can contribute (and to demonstrate that we are aware of and working on the issue). I retained the box with the link to Handling multi-stage contracting processes #440 on contracting_planning_processes.md. I'll think about linking to it from identifiers.md (Clarify definition of contracting process #866 is more about our current hack for fixing 440, so I'd rather link to 440).
Whether to separate planning and contracting processes is one of many decisions that have to be made in OCDS 2.0. Clarify definition of contracting process #866 is not the best place for that discussion, because it is stuck with OCDS 1.1 concerns. It's fine to link to issues about OCDS 1.x in the OCDS 1.x documentation, but since OCDS 2.0 could (in theory) be an entirely different standard, it's less appropriate. We don't want to start conversations about OCDS 2.0 with the baggage/mindset of OCDS 1.x.

I think those are the only two loose ends; both appeared on both contracting_planning_processes.md and identifiers.md.

I have a longer comment about identifying planning processes in #866, but there is no action for now.

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T16:25:14Z

@yolile Since this is the most significant clarification/change in 1.2, please also review.

It looks good for me, but should we also update, after merging this, the unsuccessful tender example to have 1 ocid for the planning stage, then another one for the unsuccessful tender, and finally a third one for the successful tender? And, here, for the third ocid, are we going to have two entries in the related process array, one for the unsuccessful tender and another one for the planning stage?

And, should we also update all the other JSON/worked examples where the planning stage is used?

I think we should do all those things. Is it alright, in your opinion, to do those as a high-priority follow-up issue?

For updating the unsuccessful tender example, I think it's fine for the related processes to just be a chain, e.g. the final process only links to the previous attempt, which in turn only links to the planning process. That said, I don't think it's incorrect for the final process to also link to the planning process.

yolile · 2021-07-30T17:28:22Z

I think we should do all those things. Is it alright, in your opinion, to do those as a high-priority follow-up issue?

Not a high priority, just something we need to remember to do

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T18:10:05Z

Follow-up issue is #1362. The problematic commit in my review was 257a279

I have edited ocid. The original in this PR:

A globally unique identifier for this OCDS contracting process. Furthermore, this identifier can also refer to an OCDS planning process or a single stage of a multiple stage procedure.

Now:

A globally unique identifier for the contracting process that the release describes. Alternatively, this identifier can refer to a planning process or a single stage of a multiple stage procedure.

Since this is the release schema, this version more clearly communicates the relationship between a release and contracting process. I also use "Alternatively" instead of "Furthermore" to make clear that these are alternatives: i.e., that a contracting process and planning process are different types of things.

You can read my lengthy commit message for 4abc3af

release: - Change the first sentence to what OCDS is used for (not releases specifically, defined later). - Remove sentence about what concepts releases cover, as this is done by the rest of the schema. - Move "many releases" sentence before "previous releases" sentence, for better flow. - Small copy-edit. ocid: - Restore two-sentence construction, to distinguish primary and secondary use cases. - Clarify that the secondary use cases are alternative, not additional, semantics. - Clarify the relationship between the release and process. - Use "internal identifier" consistently.

…d concepts, not OCDS concepts.

…pen Contracting ID" - schema/identifiers: Use "release" not "OCDS release"

…the description of a record. Adapt title and description for ocid from release schema.

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T19:12:59Z

In the merge commit, I had changed the description of record. The original version in this PR was:

Information about a contracting process or a contracting planning process. Furthermore, a record may also inform about a single stage of a multi-stage procedure (e.g. a framework agreement with reopening of competition).

This unnecessarily replicates semantics that should be deferred to a release. It is now:

A record aggregates releases with the same open contracting process identifier (ocid).

yolile · 2021-07-30T19:17:47Z

I guess another follow-up is to address this comment: https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1335/files#r670825255 by updating the planning definition and fields.

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T19:19:04Z

I guess another follow-up is to address this comment: https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/pull/1335/files#r670825255 by updating the planning definition and fields.

Thankfully, that PR is still open :)

jpmckinney · 2021-07-30T19:27:16Z

🚀 🚢

…entifier" #1216.

…se" #1216

JachymHercher added 6 commits February 14, 2021 14:54

Definition of contracting process

1792be4

Define OCDS record

325b528

Wording cleanup

95431f4

Distinguish contracting / planning definitions

5792f97

Update definition of OCID

5d8fb0b

generated by script

d5d1a73

JachymHercher added Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues Schema: Fields Relating to adding or deprecating fields in the JSON Schema Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions labels Feb 14, 2021

JachymHercher added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Feb 14, 2021

JachymHercher linked an issue Feb 14, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request

Clarify definition of contracting process #866

Closed

2 tasks

JachymHercher added 2 commits February 14, 2021 16:21

Update changelog.md

36c2f4f

JachymHercher added 2 commits July 14, 2021 20:13

typo

56b2edd

JachymHercher marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2021 14:49

JachymHercher added 4 commits July 17, 2021 16:56

Update documentation wording

f895e98

Update guidance about the releaseTag

b611dc2

Uncompatible --> incompatible

dcc2802

uncompatible --> incompatible

a8acac6

JachymHercher mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2021

Worked example: Move discussion of contracting process out of unsuccessful tenders #1159

Closed

JachymHercher added 3 commits July 28, 2021 12:43

Under OCDS --> In OCDS

530e2fd

Under OCDS --> In OCDS

f74e0ce

Update general scope

76413ea

See #903 (comment)

This was referenced Jul 29, 2021

Add more synonyms to various field descriptions #903

Closed

Clarify contracts description (896) #1208

Merged

jpmckinney removed the Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues label Jul 29, 2021

contracting_planning_processes: fix image letter case

c211c6c

Signed-off-by: Yohanna Lisnichuk <[email protected]>

yolile approved these changes Jul 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

jpmckinney added 5 commits July 30, 2021 14:35

schema,guidance: Avoid use of "OCDS process". Processes are real-worl…

aabdd31

…d concepts, not OCDS concepts.

build: Run manage.py pre-commit

55b08f7

Use "open contracting process identifier" consistently, instead of "O…

b873e81

…pen Contracting ID" - schema/identifiers: Use "release" not "OCDS release"

record package schema: Defer to the description of a release/ocid in …

b6013c8

…the description of a record. Adapt title and description for ocid from release schema.

Fix broken internal links

0691040

jpmckinney merged commit 40f2d56 into 1.2-dev Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney deleted the 866-clarify-contracting-process-record-define-planning-process branch July 30, 2021 19:26

jpmckinney removed the unresolved-suggestions To filter pull requests with unresolved suggestions label Jul 31, 2021

jpmckinney added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2021

primer: Remove "initiation" #821. Prefer "open contracting process id…

de64607

…entifier" #1216.

jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2021

Primer translation, update homepage, remove "initiation" #1365

Merged

This was referenced Aug 20, 2021

Merge 1.1-dev into 1.2-dev #1391

Merged

Update all stage object descriptions and release tags #1385

Closed

jpmckinney mentioned this pull request May 18, 2022

Review usage of "contracting process" to account for planning process #1409

Closed

duncandewhurst mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2023

OCDS 1.2: Key changes to socialize #1628

Open

jpmckinney added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2023

milestoneType: Use "planning process" instead of "pre-procurement pha…

9d13c46

…se" #1216

jpmckinney added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2023

milestoneType: Use "planning process" instead of "pre-procurement pha…

db9881d

…se" #1216

jpmckinney mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2024

Feature contracing process and planning process definitions in the reference documentation #1714

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Clarify contracting process, record and ocid, define planning process (866) #1216

Clarify contracting process, record and ocid, define planning process (866) #1216

JachymHercher commented Feb 14, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jpmckinney commented Apr 20, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 29, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

Clarify contracting process, record and ocid, define planning process (866) #1216

Clarify contracting process, record and ocid, define planning process (866) #1216

Conversation

JachymHercher commented Feb 14, 2021 • edited Loading

jpmckinney commented Apr 20, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 29, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 • edited Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 • edited Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

yolile commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021

JachymHercher commented Feb 14, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jpmckinney commented Jul 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading