Closed niksilver closed 2 years ago
Thanks Nik 👏 from a quick first pass these all look correct based on the spreadsheet and the YAML looks consistent/valid. I'm gonna have a proper look through and see if I have any suggested changes to the wording when I have some more time.
One thing I think we'll need to do (maybe a separate commit on this PR so that it's clear) is to remove the mid-level competencies that we've marked as "DROP" in the spreadsheet. Otherwise we'll end up with duplicates across levels. Also open to having a separate PR opened for this if it's easier to manage that way?
One thing I think we'll need to do (maybe a separate commit on this PR so that it's clear) is to remove the mid-level competencies that we've marked as "DROP" in the spreadsheet. Otherwise we'll end up with duplicates across levels. Also open to having a separate PR opened for this if it's easier to manage that way?
Thanks for the prompt. I was thinking of doing that as a separate PR, but will make that change as part of this PR. The reason I changed my mind is that the two kinds changes are connected, and therefore it keeps all the discussion in one place. Discussion about changes across two PRs would get messy.
Following a brief conversation with @rowanmanning I'm making all the changes on this branch, so people can always easily see the current state of this branch. Before merging with main
I'll squash all the small commits. That will invalidate people's local copy of this branch (because it will involve a force push), but the history on this branch will be mostly unimportant anyway. Apologies for any confusion.
The competencies in this pull request were created by the working group for the engineering progression framework. No text has been changed from that. The top level summary text is new.