Do we need intermediate snapshots?

[wrygiel]

Our IRO claims that EUC requires all previously approved versions of the LA to be present on the final LA. Can someone confirm this? (I wasn't able to reason this out of the LA template.)

Currently, our mobility representation cannot contain more than 3 snapshots:

<before-mobility-snapshot/>
<latest-approved-snapshot/>
<latest-draft-snapshot/>

Do we need to add more? E.g.

<xs:element name="previously-approved-snapshot" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

@erasmus-without-paper/all-members

[ghost]

If you ask me, EUC only requires a final set of courses agreed on by tree parties. It doesn't matter if the three parties (sending HEI, receiving HEI and student) agree on all the changes at once or with each change individually as loon as in the end there is a LA agreed on by the three parties! To put it differently, if - for an audit - we have to demonstrate that the three parties agreed with the LA during moblity we can either show them an email for each change where the three parties agree or an email with all changes where the three parties agree.

[ghost]

In other words, the current representation, where we have a ''before-mobility-snapshot' and a 'latest-approved-snapshot' seems to cater for the EUC requirements

[kaiqu]

Is this connected to the versioning discussion in #5, where the tentative conclusion is that partners can't be expected to provide a LA snapshot from any given point in time - or have I misunderstood?

[wrygiel]

To put it differently, if - for an audit - we have to demonstrate that the three parties agreed with the LA during moblity we can either show them an email for each change where the three parties agree or an email with all changes where the three parties agree.

Huh, this seems to contradict what I've learned from our IRO then. I don't know what to think. I will try to obtain more information.

Is this connected to the versioning discussion in #5, where the tentative conclusion is that partners can't be expected to provide a LA snapshot from any given point in time - or have I misunderstood?

Yes. Partners can't be required to provide more snapshots. We are only considering if it would be useful for anyone to allow them to provide them.

[jpbacelar]

Hate to complicate matters further, but it might be worth pointing that many HEIs still require signatures for confirming LA changes (nearly 70% as per the desk research, if memory serves me well).

Paul¹s remarks that an audit will settle for the first and last version of LA bodes well with my experience. Then again there are cases of overzealous auditors, but requiring all version of the LA is a fairly byzantine exegesis of the programme guidelines.

[wrygiel]

Hate to complicate matters further, but it might be worth pointing that many HEIs still require signatures for confirming LA changes (nearly 70% as per the desk research, if memory serves me well).

You mean paper signatures, right?

[jpbacelar]

Yep. Although he programme guidelines would allow to replace them by the click of a bottom (or an email) the transition isn¹t happening overnight.

[wrygiel]

Approving LAs via EWP won't change the whole process overnight, because only a subset of HEIs are covered by proper EWP APIs. Only after both partner HEIs implement EWP, they will be able to switch all their shared mobilities to the new flow. Do you think it's gradual enough?

[wrygiel]

Huh, this seems to contradict what I've learned from our IRO then. I don't know what to think. I will try to obtain more information.

I didn't receive more feedback, so I think we may close this issue for now. I believe that intermediate snapshots won't be needed.