stecklow
commented
1 month ago Thanks for the additional info @ayyubibrahimi - my list that I made in #13 was not actually inclusive of every state, just the ones I had any notes about.
Here is the actual full list of potential launch states as I understand them, with their status as I understand it:
- Arizona: no issues - Alaska: best to hold for launch
- California: no issues
- Florida: question about column name
- Georgia: question about column name
- Idaho: question about row collapsing
- Illinois: no issues - Indiana: question about column name, and issue with end dates
- Maryland: question about column names and maybe row collapsing - North Carolina: employment history data question, maybe best to hold for launch
- New Mexico: maybe this is a row collapsing question?
- Oregon: row collapsing question
- South Carolina: row collapsing question
- Tennessee: no issues
- Utah: no issues
- Vermont: row collapsing question
- Washington: question about column name
- West Virginia: no issues
- Wyoming: question about column name
I removed Iowa from this because for some reason I previously thought it had been processed.
I also may receive processed Indiana data this week, if it comes in time to utilize, so that's why I left it there. If it's too late regardless for launch, that's fine and we can keep it off the list.
ayyubibrahimi
A tentative list of states that we should launch with that are referenced in #13. The list is divided into confirmed and holds.
Confirmed
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “actively employed,” etc., or change name of column?
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “actively employed,” etc., or change name of column?
Illinois - no notes, but seems like a good model for the "reason for separation" column
Indiana - question
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “active,” or change name of column?
No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Utah - question No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Washington - question
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “certified,” or change name of column? Also if things could not be all-caps
No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Not sure “separation reason” is actually showing that - should we change the name of the column?
Holds
Data is probably too incomplete for launch, not sure how many officers actually have history, too many other questions about immediate usefulness, and the state is now also being difficult with my update request so not even sure we can immediately promise anything
No end dates.
I didn’t see Iowa in the launch data folder - which is fine, but it’s otherwise on my list, so just not sure what to list it as (Ben only sent raw data. This has not been processed).
I don’t see any employment history in the index file
Rows in data appear to show employment status or certification changes within individual departments - honestly really not sure what the index file shows
Maybes
Seems like columns reflect employment changes, and certifications, within an agency - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?
Some of the rows appear to show more employment status changes within departments, though other repeated departments appear to be different stints, which would track with our rule about contiguous service being collapsed
Vermont - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?