Ad-Hoc Committee Attendance

[devinmatte]

So now that there's not only Insights as an Ad-Hoc committee, but also Public Relations. This means we're going to need somewhere to put attendance. Last year Marc just put insights under "Chairman", but that's not proper.

Now at the very least having an "Ad-Hoc Committee" option would be better than the current alternative.
It would also be ideal if said ad-hoc committee head could approve their own attendance.

Now the most annoying detail about this is the fact that constitutionally, Ad-Hoc committee meetings count towards 10 weeks, but do not count towards spring evaluations.

[bmbowdish]

Why is it that when I'm away we decide Ad Hoc committees are really cool 😒

[mbillow]

Last year Marc just put insights under "Chairman", but that's not proper.

It got the point across. 😝

Now at the very least having an "Ad-Hoc Committee" option would be better than the current alternative.

So, this becomes an architectural problem if you want the list of directorships to be fluid. Currently we have a CommitteeMeeting model with an Enum for the list of directorships. (https://github.com/ComputerScienceHouse/conditional/blob/develop/conditional/models/models.py#L56)
To maintain normalization, we would have to break the column our to it's own table of possible options and then put foreign keys linking each meeting object to a directorship. This would require not only these changes but the endpoints and interface necessary for the actual changes to be made.

It would also be ideal if said ad-hoc committee head could approve their own attendance.

Hmmm... By adding ad-hoc committee heads to the eboard group in LDAP they will be able to do this. That might also have unintended consequences across our other systems though. It would be easy enough to add an adhoc group to LDAP and then give them access to those endpoints. Is it necessary to restrict which meetings they can approve? Actually, is this even necessary... I know it isn't a lot of work to change this, but having your attendance approved isn't a huge deal.

[devinmatte]

At the very least, we're now going to need PR as an option for attendance for the next year. Maybe this would be the best time to add Ad-Hoc, or restructure to allow for changing the possible values to be less static

[mbillow]

PRs are always welcome. 😇

[mbillow]

The alembic migration would have to be able to handle updating all previous entries as well.

[devinmatte]

I don't know if it would need to handle existing entries? I mean, chairman attendance has been used for both Insights and PR, so we'd have to go off of individual ids if we want to do that

[mbillow]

Honestly, I would prefer to just keep Chairman as an option. It doesn't do any harm. The solution I see here is to break a list of directorships into a seperate table with each meeting having a foreign key to the ID of the directorship. The new table should also have an active boolean and we can just not show any inactive directorships.