Removing ListAgent[Field] fields in favor of ListAgent expansion

[codygustafson]

I would like the ability to remove the [(Co?)List(Buyer?)[Agent|Office]][Field] fields in favor of expanding the associated members and offices. My main hesitance with this is that it will likely negatively impact our availability reports. I believe these fields are pulled forward from RETS because RETS had a flat structure. Now that we are leveraging a standard with relational support, I think we should decide if these fields should be included in any of the APIs today. There is a need for historical data. Some data does belong on the listing and should not change after a listing closes.

My hope with bringing this up is that we can act by doing one of or both of the following:

• not disincentivizing FBS from doing this work with RESO reporting. Lower standards counts should not be a reason for proceeding with this.
• Make this behavior the industry standard and identify the fields that are significant for historical purposes.

[codygustafson]

See discussion: https://github.com/RESOStandards/transport/discussions/55

[darnjo]

Closing for now. We can reopen depending on the outcome of the related discussion.